2

3
4
5

Gary Lane, Esq., SBN: 50960 CONSUMER PROTECTION ASSISTANCE COALITION, INC., (DE) A Not for Profit Legal Clinic Mailing Address: 3943 Irvine Blvd., #614 Irvine, CA 92602 Headquarters Address: 24 Spyrock, Irvine, CA 92602 Telephone: (800) 991-7634 Facsimile: (714) 955-6655

SUPERIOR COURT OF OALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CENTRAl JUSTICE CENTER

FILED

J"<

JUL 122011

A~
BY E. SU1iER

C ... of 1l1e Court

6
7
&

Attorneys for Plaintiff Gary Lane, Esq.

9
10

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE

11
12
13

~o-?n11

GARY LANE, an individual

Plaintiff,

14

15 16 17 18
19

v.
STUART PRICE, an individual

Defendant.

20
21

22
23
24

) ) CASE NO.: ) ) COMPLAINT FOR: ) ) 1. VIOLATION OF RIGHTS TO FREE ) SPEECH AND PETITION IN ) ACCORDANCE WITH CCP 425.16 ) ) 2. ABUSE OF PROCESS ) ) 3. DEFAMATION ) 4. FALSE LIGHT ) ) ) 5. NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ) ) RELATIONS ) ) JUDGE DAVtD R.CHAFFEf )
)
)

00490380

25

['2-D

26
27
28

1+-------------- )

Comes GARY LANE (hereinafter "Plaintiff'), who for cause of action against Defendant alleges as follows:

COMPLAINT

1.
2

This action against Defendant arises out of Defendant's intentional, malicious. and

meticulous attempts to discredit Plaintiff, prevent him from defending the rights of the underprivileged in our society, interfere with the management of his business, and harm his professional reputation, future career, and current and future earning potential.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3
4

6
7

2.

The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California

Constitution Article VI section 10, which grants the Superior Court "original jurisdiction in all causes except those given by statute to other trial courts." No other basis ofjurisdiction is implied in this case, which presents California state law claims regarding California legal service transactions conducted by a California based entity. 3. Venue is proper in this Court because Defendant's liability to Plaintiff arose within

8 9
10 11 12

the jurisdictional region of this Court. 4. Defendant herein purposefully directed his activities to the State of California and

13
14

consummated a transaction with a resident of the State of California, Plaintiff herein. As a result, Defendant caused an event or events to occur in California, and more particularly in Orange County, out of which this action arises and which forms the basis of this action. 5. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and personal

15
16

17
18 19

jurisdiction over each of the parties. 6. Additionally, Plaintiff has, as detailed below, asserted causes of action that arise

20
21 22

under California Law and depend entirely on state law. 7. Venue is proper for this Court.

THE PARTIES
8. Plaintiff Gary Lane (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff' or "Mr. Lane") is a licensed
C

23

24 25
26
27
28

California attorney, for thirty-nine years practicing in the State of California, currently in the County of Orange at 2911 South Bristol Street, Santa Ana, CA 9.
92704~6205

Defendant Stuart Price (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant" or "Mr. Price") is a

licensed California attorney practicing in the State of California, County of Orange at 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500, Irvine, CA 92612-4414.
2
COMPLAINT


FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
2

10.

Plaintiff is an attorney, licensed to practice in all courts in the state of California. For

3
4

approximately the past three years, his practice has primarily involved lawsuits filed on the behalf of homeowners whose home ownership is wrongfully threatened by the fraudulent, or otherwise wrongful actions of lenders, banks, and similarly situated institutions. As a part of this practice, Plaintiff has filed a number of suits against Bank of America, N.A., and its related entities which include BAC Home Loans Servicing Inc., Countrywide Home Loans, and Recontrust Company, N.A. 11. Plaintiff is infonned and believes and herein alleges that Stuart Price is an attorney

5
6
7

8
9
10
II

with the firm of Bryan Cave LLP. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Bryan Cave LLP regularly represents Bank of America, N.A and its related entities. Plaintiff is infonned and believes and herein alleges that Stuart Price is a senior partner with the firm of Bryan Cave LLC, and is the senior partner responsible for managing all foreclosure-related cases Of Bank Of America And Its captive affiliates. 12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Stuart Price has represented,

12 13
14

IS 16 17
18 19

andlor overseen the representation of Bank of America, N.A.. and its related entities, in all, or
substantially all suits brought by Gary Lane where Bank of America, N A., andlor its related entities are defendants, and Bryan Cave, LLC is the attorney of record for Bank of America, N.A., andlor its related entities. 13. Plaintiff alleges that Bryan Cave, LLC, andlor its attorneys, under the direction of

20
21

Defendant, make it a practice to Demurrer to every Complaint filed where Bank of America, N.A.,

22 23
24

andlor its related entities are defendants, and Bryan Cave, LLC is the attorney of record for Bank of
America. N.A., andlor its related entities. 14. Plaintiff alleges that Bryan Cave, LLC, andlor its attorneys, under the direction of

25
26

Defendant, make it a practice to include an introduction in all, or substantially all of such demurrers which makes false allegations about Plaintiff: directly, personally, and by name, and impugn his character, professional reputation, professional practices, and professional ethics. A true and correct

27

28

portion oj such a Demurrer, which is exemplary oj the duplicative allegations alleged in all, or
3

COMPLAINT


2
3

substantially all similar Demurrers is attached as Exhibit A. A further true and correct portion of another such Demurrer, wherein the Judge denied the requested sanctions is attached as Exhibit B,

15.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant personally has directly, and indirectly taken

4
5

purposeful action to attempt to discredit Plaintiff, prevent him from defending the rights of those less fortunate in our society, and interfere with the management of his business, and harm his

6
7

professional reputation, future career, and current and future earning potential. a. On or about June 17, 2010, in connection with a prior and separate lawsuit brought by Gary Lane on a homeowner's behalf, Martinez v. Countrywide et. al., Case No. BC4359l0, Defendant, or his agents office requested Gary Lane stipulate to continue a hearing. This stipulation was executed by both parties, and Gary Lane reasonably believed that it had been filed, and that the hearing had been continued. However, Defendant, and/or his agents failed to properly file this Joint Stipulation without giving notice to Gary Lane, resulting in sanctions being issued against Gary Lane for failing to appear. A true and
correct copy of an Opposition filed by Plaintiff is attached hereto as Exhibit

8
9

10
1I
12

13

14
15 16
17

C.
1.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that this failure was purposefully and intentionally undertaken for the sole purpose of causing Plaintiff financial harm, and in an attempt to discredit Plaintiff and interfere with the management of his business, and harm his professional reputation, future career, and current and future earning potential.

18
19

20
21 22
23

ii.

Plaintiff alleges that the incident cited above is merely an example of such behavior and that Defendant, and/or his agents repeated this practice numerous times, to Plaintiffs detriment.

24

25 26
27

b.

On or about January 24, 2010 in connection with a prior and separate lawsuit brought by Gary Lane on a homeowner's behalf, Sanchez v. Countrywide Horne Loans Inc., et al. Case No. CV 10-02354, Defendant, and his agent
4
COMPLAINT

28


2
)

appeared in Federal Court for a hearing on an OSC reo sanctions. Wherein Defendant's co-counsel, at Defendant's direction peIjured herself on the stand and made false representations resulting in sanctions later being issued against Gary Lane. A true and correct copy of the Court's Order in this matter is
attached hereto as Exhibit D.
1.

5 6 7
8

Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that this action was purposefully and intentionally undertaken for the sole purpose of causing Plaintiff financial harm, and in an attempt to discredit Plaintiff and interfere with his ability to represent those less fortunate in our society, and with the management of his business, and hann his professional reputation, future career, and current and future earning potential.

10

11
12

13 14 15
16 17

11.

Plaintiff alleges that the incident cited above is merely an example of such behavior and that Defendant, and/or his agents repeatedly perjured themselves to Plaintiffs detriment, including in numerous documents, just as done by Plaintiff s clients.

c.

On or about August 2010, in connection with a prior and separate lawsuit brought by Gary Lane on a homeowner's behalf, Martinez v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., Case No BC43591O, Defendant, filed an Order to Show

18
19

20 21

Cause, demanding that the Federal Court order Plaintiff to refrain from filing any further lawsuits against Bank of America, N.A., and lor its related entities without prior approval from a supervising state Judge. The Federal Court denied this demand. A true and correct copy ofPlaintiffs motion to strike this
Order to Show Cause is attached hereto as Exhibit E
1.

22
23 24

25

Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that this action was purposefully and intentionally undertaken for the sole purpose of causing Plaintiff haml, and in an attempt to discredit Plaintiff and inteIfere with his ability and right to represent those less fortunate, and
5

26
27

28

COMPLAINT


2
3

with the management of his business, and harm his professional reputation, future career, and current and future earning potential. d. On or about June 2011 Defendant, and/or his agents filed a Complaint with the State Bar of California against Plaintiff, citing seventy eight (78) cases wherein Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of a homeowner wherein Bank of America, N.A., and lor its related entities were named as defendants. A true
and correct copy ofthe list of 78 cases at issue is attached hereto as Exhibit F.

5
6 7
8
9

Due to state law, and the custom and practice of the State Bar in

investigating such Complaints, Plaintiff is obligated to respond individually to the State Bar Complaint as to each and every one of the 78 cases identified in Stuart Price's Complaint to the State Bar.

10 11
12

i.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that this action was purposefully and intentionally undertaken for the sole purpose of causing Plaintiff to be unable to assist clients who are less fortunate, causing financial harm, and in an attempt to discredit Plaintiff and interfere with the management of his business, making it impossible for him to perform his daily tasks, and harm his professional reputation, future career, and current and future earning potential.

13
14

15
16
17

18

19

16.

As a direct result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff has been harmed in that he has

20
21

been required to spend countless hours responding to Defendant's wrongful tactics, and anticipates being required to spend countless further hours to the detriment of his business. Plaintiff has further been required to spend time and money on the herein lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiffs professional reputation has been irrevocably damaged, all to his detriment. Normally the State Bar provides for a month to respond to a single complaint, expecting it to take that much time to find the opportunity to respond. Here the bar received 78 complaints from Stuart Price submitted as one by Stuart Price, which would be expected to take 78 months to find the opportunity to respond. However, since the complaints were brought by the single individual, Stuart Price, at one time, the bar is providing one to two months to respond. This is clearly impossible, and the result is effectively putting Mr. Lane's
6

22
23

24

25
26
27

28

COMPLAINT

General Allegations

law office out of business, by requiring that all of his time be spent solely on responding to Mr. Price's complaints, and none spent on preparing law suits against Mr. Price's client, Countrywide Mortgage, the admitted perpetrator of the largest number of home loan mortgage frauds in this nation. 17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant will continue to

3
4

s
6
7
8

attempt to bring false administrative and legal claims against Plaintiff for Plaintiff's rightful practice of law, unless Defendant is forever enjoined from such action.

9
10

18.

Plaintiff has to spend many hours and days and weeks trying to respond to

Defendant's wrongful tactics, as detailed above. 19. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant reasonably should have anticipated that his fraudulent

11
12

and wrongful actions would cause Plaintiff to suffer lasting harm in Plaintiffs business relationships and ability to do business. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant acted purposefully to cause said harm. 20. Defendant lied about Plaintiff and/or caused others to lie, and made a multifaceted

13
14
15 16
17

complaint against Plaintiff to the State Bar of California. 21. Plaintiffs business and reputation has been harmed by Plaintiff's defamatory

18
19

statements and his filing of false charges by Defendant against PlaintifI with the State Bar of California. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND PETITION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CCP 425.16 22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in

20
21

22

23
24

paragraphs 1 to 21 of the Complaint as though herein fully set forth. 23. The California State Constitution provides in Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 that:

25

26

"SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.
7 COMPLAINT

27
28


[... ]
2
3

SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good." 24. Although usually referenced in the context of motions, California Code of Civil

5
6

Procedure 425.16 provides that: "The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly.
(b)(1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in

8
9
10 1\

12
[3

14

furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." See CCP 425.16 (a), (b). Furthermore in the context of this statute: "an "act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue" includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative) executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, or (4) any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right
8
COMPLAINT

15
16
17

18
19
20

21 22

23
24
25
26

27 28

offree speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest." See CCP 425.16 (e). 25. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant Stuart Price has

3
4

acted, and continues to act purposefully to attempt to wrongfully bar Plaintiff Gary Lane from bringing valid lawsuits against Bank. of America, N.A., and lor its related entities on behalf of homeowners who are the victims ofthe demonstrated fraud committed during the mortgage debacle by Mr. Price's clients. 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that the State Bar Complaint, and

s
6

8
9
10

Order to Show Cause in Martinez v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., were brought solely for the purpose of chilling the valid exercise of homeowner's constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances, and Plaintiff's right under the State Bar Act, codified at Business and Professions Code 6000 et seq., to bring suit on behalf of his clients in order to defend and advance those rights on his clients' behalf. 27.
PI~ntiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant cannot prevail on

11
12
13

14
15
16

any of his claims against Plaintiff. Defendant's attempts to restrict Plaintiffs righteous practice of law have already failed in Federal Court and likewise have no probability of success as a Complaint with the State Bar, since all Complaints tiled were based on the identical and very same cases and valid claims of Plaintiff's clients or former clients previously reviewed in Federal Court. 28.
Mr. Price is now midway through his second attempt to force Plaintiff to stop

17
18

19
20

representing the valid claims of his clients. Having failed to prevail in Federal Court. Stuart Price has now brought the current State Bar Complaint, which is similarly and demonstrably nothing more than an attempt to put Mr. Lane's firm out of business, and render Mr. Lane's clients with no place else to go. Having failed in federal court to prevent Mr. Lane from representing these clients, Mr. Price is now trying to abuse the State Bar court system to achieve his goal, by making a wrongful attempt to close down a lawfully operating competitor and 39 year veteran of the State Bar of California, Gary Lane. These actions clearly should be classified as a SLAPP action against Mr. Lane, and therefore in violation of both Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 and Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 ofthe California Constitution.
9

21
22 23
24
25

26
27 28

COMPLAINT


29.
2 3
4

Defendant has clearly violated State law as well as the limits of professional ethics by

directing that his staff conduct their defense of lawsuits by couching such defense in the manner of personal attacks against the character and integrity of Plaintiff personally, rather than dealing with the nationally critical legal issues raised in the lawsuits brought by Plaintiff against Mr. Price's clients. At no time has Mr. Lane made any of his work personal against Mr. Price or any of the members of his law firm. The opposite has been true of Mr. Price. 30. Mr. Lane is advocating within the constitutional forum, against the wrongful acts of

5
6

7
8 9
10
1J

those such as Bank of America, N.A., and its affiliates including Countrywide Bank, in their wrongful actions against homeowners. Such legal actions by Mr. Lane are constitutionally protected, under the temlS of both the California and United States Constitution, and protected by the California State Anti SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure 425.16. If Mr. Price were to be permitted to so put Plaintiffs firm out of business, he most certainly would proceed to move against all remaining such consumer law firms practicing in this horrific mortgage arena. Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests this court to put a stop to such violative actions as those taken herein by Mr. Price.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION ABUSE OF PROCESS

12

13
14
15

16

J7
J8

31.

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained

III

J9
20
21

paragraphs I to 30 of the Complaint as though herein fully set forth. 32. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant wrongfully filed a multifaceted Complaint against

Plaintiff to the California State Bar, Complaint number: 10-0-09336 (hereinafter "State Bar Complaint"). 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that on or about June 2011,

22 23

24 25
26
27
28

Defendant wrongful1y filed a Complaint against PlaintifT with the California State Bar. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that this filing was done intentionally to discredit Plaintiff, make it impossible to represent those facing homelessness, interfere with the management of his business, and harm his professional reputation, future career, and current and future earning potential. It was meant to put Mr. Lane and his office out of operation in suing Countrywide Home
10

COMPLAINT

Loans, by burdening Mr. Lane with the impossible task of responding on 78 law suits requiring some 50 pages each of explanations. AU this in disregard of the Federal Court and to ignore and defeat the judgment of said Federal Court. 34. As a result of this multifaceted State Bar Complaint, and as a direct result of

3
4

5
6

Defendant's conduct in filing the State Bar Complaint, Plaintiff has been harmed in that he is required to spend countless hours, days and weeks, responding to the State Bar Complaint and anticipates being required to spend countless further hours, days and weeks, to the detriment of his practice of law. Plaintiff has further been required to spend time and money on the herein lawsuit. Moreover, Plaintiffs professional reputation with the State Bar has been irrevocably damaged, all to his detriment. 35. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant reasonably should have anticipated that his fraudulent

8
9
10

11

12
13
14 \5

and wrongful actions would cause Plaintiff to suffer lasting harm in Plaintiff's business relationships and ability to do business. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant acted purposefully to cause said harm. 36. These acts were malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive thereby justifying an award of

16
17

punitive damages so that Defendant will not engage in such conduct in the future and to make an example of him.

18
19

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION DEFAMATION

37. Plaintiff' re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained m

20

21 22

paragraphs 1 to 36 of the Complaint as though herein fully set forth. 38. Defendant published one or more oral and written false statements which were

23
24
25

intended to impeach Plaintiffs honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation. 39. The false defamatory statements were, including, but not limited to, the following: a. On or about January 24,2010 in connection with a prior and separate lawsuit brought by Gary Lane 011 a homeowner's behalf, Sanchez v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., et al. Case No. CV 10-02354, Defendant, and his agent appeared in Federal Court for a hearing on an Order to Show Cause reo
II COMPLAINT

26
27

28


sanctions
2
3 4
5 6 7 In

connection with an earlier Case Management Conference

("CMC") which Plaintiffs office inadvertently missed due to a staff attorney's sudden departure. Wherein Defendant's cocounsel, at Defendant's direction perjured herself on the stand and made false representations resulting in sanctions being issued against Gary Lane. See Exhibit D.

b.

Defendant's co-counsel, at Defendant's direction represented that she had given notice to Mr. Lane of the CMC hearing an hour and a half prior to the hearing. She testified that Plaintiff told her that he would not be attending the CMC because "Our clients don't pay for us to go to those; we don't attend those."
1.

9
10 11
12

This statement was patently false. In actual fact Mr. Lane informed Defendant's co-counsel that he would not be attending as the late notice made it impossible to reach the court on time. The proof of this was that the allegation claimed to have called Mr. Lane on his cell phone, and then being transferred to a staff who supposedly made that comment. It was clear that Mr. Lane's cell phone had no way to transfer the attorney making the claim.

13 14 15 16
17

18

11.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that this false statement was purposefully and intentionally made for the sole purpose of causing Plaintiff fmandal harm, and in an attempt to discredit Plaintiff and interfere with the management of his business, and harm his professional reputation, future career, and current and future earning potential.

19
20 21

22
23

24

iii.

Plaintiff alleges that the incident cited above is merely an example of such behavior and that Defendant, and/or his agents repeatedly perjured themselves to Plaintiffs detriment, including in numerous documents, just as done by Plaintiffs clients.

25

26
27 28

12

COMPLAINT


c.
2

On or about August 2010, in connection with a prior and separate lawsuit brought by Gary Lane on a homeowner's behalf, Martinez v. Countrywide

3
4

Home Loans, Inc., Case No BC43591O, Defendant, filed an Order to Show

Cause, demanding that the Federal Court order Plaintiff to refrain from filing any further lawsuits against Bank of America, N.A., and lor its related entities without prior approval from a supervising state Judge. The Federal Court denied this demand. See Exhibit E.
1.

5
6

7 8

As part of this Order to Show Cause, Defendant, and/or his co-counsel made false representations that Plaintiff has committed an abuse of process and has filed meritless cases for the sole purpose of harassing Defendant's clients and delaying or forestalling a pending foreclosure or modification.

IO
11
12
13
14

ii.

These statements were patently false. In actual fact all suits were filed based on the valid and legitimate claims of Plaintiffs clients.

15
16

111.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that this action was purposefully and intentionally undertaken for the sole purpose of causing Plaintiff harm, and in an attempt to discredit Plaintiff, prevent him from representing those at risk of homelessness, and interfere with the management of his business, and harm his professional reputation, future career, and current and future earning potential.

17 18

19

20 21

d.

On or about June 2011 Defendant, andlor his agents filed a Complaint with the State Bar against Plaintiff, citing seventy eight (78) cases wherein Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of a homeowner wherein Bank of America, N.A., and lor its related entities were named as defendants and falsely representing that such cases has filed for the sole purpose of harassing DeHmdant's clients and delaying or forestalling a pending foreclosure or modification. See Exhibit F Due to state law, and the custom and practice of the State Bar in investigating such Complaints, Plaintiff is obligated to respond individually to the State Bar
13
COMPLAINT

22 23
24

25

26
27
28


2 3
1.

Complaint as to ea.ch and every one of the 78 cases identified in Stuart Price's Complaint to the State Bar. These statements were patently false. In actual fact all suits were filed based on the valid and legitimate claims of Plaintiffs clients. The sworn statements of clients accompanied virtually everyone of those complaints. ii. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that this action was purposefully and intentionally undertaken for the sole purpose of causing Plaintiff financial harm, and in an attempt to discredit Plaintiff and interfere with the management of his business, and harm his professional reputation, future career, and current and future earning potential. 40. California, Defendant flied a multifaceted complaint against Plaintiff with the State Bar of

4
5 6

7 8
9
10 II

12
13
14

15
16

41.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant reasonably

understood that the above statements were about Plaintiff

17
l8

42.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant reasonably

understood that the statements were injurious to Plaintiffs business relations, were harmful to Plaintiff's reputation, and would cause Plaintiff economic detriment.

19

20

43.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant failed to use

21
22

reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of the statements.

44.

As a direct result of Defendant's false and defamatory statements, Defendant caused

23
24

Plaintiff actual damages including harm to Plaintiffs property, business, trade, profession, or occupation; expenses Plaintiff had to pay as a result of the defamatory statements, including loss of time; and harm to Plaintiffs reputation. 45. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant reasonably should have anticipated that his

25

26
27

fraudulent. defamatory, and wrongful actions would cause Plaintiff to suffer lasting harm in

28

14

COMPLAINT

------------------------~--

2
3 4 5

Plaintiffs business relationships and ability to do business. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant acted purposefully to cause said harm. 46. 47. Plaintiff is not a public figure. Even if Defendant's claims were to have arisen out of a general matter of public

concern, Defendant's statements were false and negligently made. Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for injunctive relief and actual, special, and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 48. These acts were malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive thereby justifying an award of

6
7

8
9
10

punitive damages so that Defendant will not engage in such conduct in the future and to make an example of him. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FALSE LIGHT 49. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained m

11
12 13
14

paragraphs 1 to 48 of the Complaint as though herein fully set forth.

15

50.

Defendant published one or more oral and written false statements which were

16
\7

intended to impeach Plaintiff's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation. 51. The false statements were, including, but not limited to, the following: a. On or about January 24,2010 in connection with a prior and separate lawsuit brought by Gary Lane on a homeowner's behalf, Sanchez v. Countrywide Horne Loans Inc., et aI. Case No. CV 10-02354, Defendant, and his agent appeared in Federal Court for a hearing on an Order to Show Cause reo sanctions in connection with an earlier Case Management Conference ("CMC") which Plaintiffs office inadvertently missed (due to a staff attorney's sudden and unexpected last minute departure). Wherein

18
19

20
21

22
23

24
25 26

Defendant's co-counsel, at Defendant's direction, perjured herself on the stand and made false representations resulting in sanctions subsequently being issued against Gary Lane. See Exhibit D.

27

28
15

COMPLAINT


1. 2

Defendant's co-counsel, at Defendant's direction, represented that she had given notice to Mr. Lane of the CMC hearing an hour and a half prior to the hearing. She testified that Plaintiff told her that he would not be attending the CMC because "Our clients don't pay for us to go to those; we don't attend those."

4
5
6 11.

This statement was patently false. In actual fact Mr. Lane informed Defendant's co-counsel that he would not be attending as the late notice made it impossible to reach the court on time. The truth of the statement was supported by the fact the perjurer stated the statement was made during a cellphone call in which Lane transferred the call to a staffwho made the statement. In reality the cell phone had no way to transfer the call.

8
9

10

II
12
13
14
111.

Plaintiff is infomled and believes and herein alleges that this false statement was purposefully and intentionally made for the sole purpose of causing Plaintiff financial harm, and in an attempt to discredit Plaintiff and interfere with the management of his business, and harm his professional reputation, future career, and current and future earning potential.

15
16

17

18
19
IV.

Plaintiff alleges that the incident cited above is merely an example of such behavior and that Defendant, and/or his agents repeatedly perjured themselves to Plaintiff's detriment, including in numerous documents, just as done by Plaintiff s clients.

20
21

22
23

b.

On or about August 2010, in connection with a prior and separate lawsuit brought by Gary Lane on a homeowner's behalf, Martinez v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., Case No BC43591O, Defendant. filed an Order to Show

24
25

26 27

Cause, demanding that the Federal Court order Plaintiff to refrain from filing any further lawsuits against Bank of America, N.A., and lor its related entities

28

16

COMPlAINT


2
3
1.

without prior approval from a supervising state Judge. The Federal Court denied this demand. See Exhibit E. As part of this Order to Show Cause, Defendant, andlor his co-counsel made false representations that Plaintiff has committed an abuse of process and has filed meritless cases for the sole purpose of harassing Defendant's clients and delaying or forestalling a pending foreclosure or modification.
lI.

5
6

7
8
9
10 11
lll.

These statements were patently false. In actual fact all suits were filed based on the valid and legitimate claims of Plaintiff's clients. Virtually of them accompanied by a sworn verification by the clients. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that this action was purposefully and intentionally undertaken for the sole purpose of causing Plaintiff harm, and in an attempt to discredit Plaintiff and interfere with the management of his business, and harm his professional reputation, future career, and current and future earning potential.

12
13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 C.

On or about June 2011 Defendant, and/or his agents filed a Complaint with the State Bar against Plaintiff, citing seventy eight (78) cases wherein Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of a homeowner wherein Bank of America, N.A., and lor its related entities were named as defendants and falsely representing that such cases has filed for the sole purpose of harassing Defendant's clients and delaying or forestalling a pending foreclosure or modification. These closely constituted the entire list of lawsuits ever filed by Mr. Lane against Bank of America and its affiliates, including the infamous COlmtrywide Bank. See

22
23

24
25

Exhibit F Due to state law, and the custom and practice of the State Bar in
investigating such Complaints, Plaintiff is obligated to respond individually to the State Bar Complaint as to each and everyone of the 78 cases identified in Stuart Price's Complaint to the State Bar.
17
COMPLAINT

26
27
28

-------------------------------

------

i.
2
3

These statements by Mr. Price were patently false. In actual fact all suits were filed based on the valid and legitimate claims of Plaintiff's clients.

ii.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that this action was purposefully and intentionally undertaken for the sole purpose of causing Plaintiff financial harm, and in an attempt to discredit Plaintiff and interfere with the management of his business, and harm his professional reputation, future career, and current and future earning potential.

5
6

7
8
9 10 1I

52. California. 53.

Defendant filed a multifaceted complaint against Plaintiff with the State Bar of

12
13
14 15

Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant reasonably

understood that the above statements were about Plaintiff. 54. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant reasonably

understood that the statements were injurious to Plaintiffs business relations, were harmful to Plaintiffs reputation, and would cause Plaintiffeconomic detriment. 55. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant failed to use

16

17
18
19

reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of the statements. 56. As a direct result of Defendant's false statements, Defendant caused Plaintiff actual

20

damages including harm to Plaintiffs property, business, trade, profession, or occupation; expenses Plaintiff had to pay as a result of the defamatory statements, including loss oftime; and harm to Plaintiffs reputation. 57. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant reasonably should have anticipated that his fraudulent

21 22
23

24 25
26
27

and wrongful actions would cause Plaintiff to suffer lasting .harm in Plaintiffs business relationships and ability to do business. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant acted purposefully to cause said harm. 58. Plaintiff is not a public figure.

28

18 COMPLAINT

---------------~-----

59.
2
3
4

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

In

Even if Defendant's claims were to have arisen out of a general matter of public

concern, Defendant's statements were false and negligently made. Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for injunctive relief and actual, special, and compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

6
7
8 9 10 II
12
IJ

NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS 60. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained

paragraphs 1 to 59 of the Complaint as though herein fully set forth. 61. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's clients were in an economic relationship that probably would

have resulted in a future economic benefit to Plaintiff; 62. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that as an attorney practicing in

the State of Califomi a, Defendant knew or should have known of this relationship; 63. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant knew or should

14

have known that this relationship would be disrupted ifhe failed to act with reasonable care; 64. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant failed to act with

15
16
17

reasonable care. 65. Plaintiff is infomled and believes and herein alleges that Defendant engaged in

18

wrongful conduct as set forth more fully above, including wrongful abuse of process, defamation, and false light. 66. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that as a direct result of

19

20
21 22
23

Defendant's actions the relationship between Plaintiff and its other clients was disrupted in that Plaintiff was forced to divert time and resources away from its other clients in order to respond to Defendant's wrongful acts. 67. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant reasonably should have anticipated that his fraudulent

24

25
26 27

and wrongful actions would cause Plaintiff to suffer lasting harm in Plaintiffs business relationships and ability to do business. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that Defendant acted purposefully to cause said harm.

28

19

COMPLAINT


68.
2
3
4

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

As a result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiffhas suffered damages, including, but not

limited to, the loss of ability to run his business in an efficient manner. In addition, Plaintiff has , suffered damages including time and money spent in pursuit of Plaintiff's property. 69. Plaintiff is infonned and believes and herein alleges that Defendant's wrongful

5 6
7
8
9
10

conduct was the cause of Plaintiff1 s hann.

As a consequence of the multiple violations stated hereinabove, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for damages suffered, including general damages, compensatory damages, special damages, and for statutory damages as provided by law.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

1. For injunctive relief to prevent any further defamatory statements, and to prevent Defendant from filing any further meritless State Bar Complaints or Federal or state court demands; 2. That Plaintiff be relieved from responding to the matter brought by Stuart Price as State Bar Complaint, Complaint number: 10-0-09336 and that the Complaint should be dismissed.

II

12
I3
14

15 16

17
18
19

3.
4.

For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred herein, and For such further and/or different relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

20
21

Dated:

July 11,2011

22
23
24

CONSUMER PROTECTIONASSISTANCE COALITION, INC. (DE) A Not For Profit Legal Clinic

By:

Gary Lane, Esq. Attorneys jor Plaintiff

25
26

27

28

20 COMPLAINT