Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Pocument 197 Filed 06/21/13 Pagé1of7 Page ID #:3661 ORIGINAL oO loo] wT Nn a & ww No i 10 John Steele 7 ie = 1111 Lincoln Road i tea Suite 400 i oo Miami Beach, FL 33139 rh Pra Se | @. ae) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | "Em we CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | : CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx) INGENUITY 13 LLC, Plaintiff, Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, IT Magistrate Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Chooljian v. JOHN DOE, JOHN STEELE’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO VACATE ORDERS AND FOR ORDER Defendant. TO SHOW CAUSE 2 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY John Steele (“Movant”) eceuly reviewed the docket in this matter and was shocked to learn that attorneys Pietz and Ranallo have been submitting scores of papers to the Court over the past month without serving him. Movant has been proceeding in this case pro se since May 17, 2013, and has not received a single dgcument from attorneys Pietz and Ranallo since then. Movant conferred with other pro se persons and learned that they did not receive documents from attorneys Pietz and Ranallo either. The attempt by attorneys Pietz and Ranallo to systematically deny pro se persons their tight to be heard is a critical due process violation that the Court must swiftly address. Attorneys Pietz and Ranallo have sought, inter alia, an appellate attorneys’ fee bond in the amount of $135,933.66 and onerous bond conditions, but the pro se persons have not been afforded an opportunity to challenge those efforts. Accordingly, Movant respectfully requests that the Court vacate its order requiring the “Prenda parties” to post an additional bond in the amount of $135,933.66, its order requiring the “Prenda parties” to consent to new bond conditions, and to order attorneys Pietz and Ranallo to show cause for why they should not be sanctioned for their brazen misconduct. I MOTION TO VACATE No. 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC \ | Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC fpocument 197 Filed 06/21/13 Pag@ 2 of 7 Page ID #:3662 — uo SoS SN DO OH SF WH DY Emergency consideration of this motion is appropriate because Movant is facing crippling monetary sanctions if he does not comply with orders that were obtained ex parte. (See ECF 189) (threatening the imposition of monetary sanctions if Movant does not post an additional bond in the amount of $135,933.66 and agree to additional conditions regarding the bond by July 15, 2013.) I. ATTORNEYS PIETZ AND RANALLO HAVE FAILED TO SERVE THE PAPERS THEY HAVE SUBMITTED IN THIS MATTER ON PERSONS APPEARING PRO SE Service of papers (other than the summons and complaint) on pro se persons must be made by: (1) handing it to the person; (2) leaving at the person’s office or dwelling; or (3) mailing it to the person’s last known address, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Other methods of service are acceptable only if the person being served has consented in writing to the proposed method. Jd The Local Rules of this Court require service in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 for individuals not registered for the district court’s CM/ECF System. L.R. 5-3.2. Further, a proof of service on such individuals in the form required by Local Rule 5-3.1.2 must accompany each of these papers. /d. In this matter, attorneys Pietz and Ranallo have brazenly violated the service mandates of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. A cursory review of the papers they submitted shows that they did not serve their papers on pro se persons. (See, e.g., ECF No. 69) (failing to attach proof of service); (ECF No. 70) (same); (ECF No. 74) (same); (ECF No. 75) (same); (ECF No. 76) (same); (ECF No. 77) (same); (ECF No. 78) (same); (ECF No. 79) (same); (ECF No. 80) (same); (ECF No. 102) (same); (ECF No. 111) (attaching a proof of service, but failing to include pro se persons on the service list); (ECF No. 117) (failing to attach proof of service); (ECF No. 118) (same); (ECF No. 119) (same); (ECF No. 124) (same); (ECF No. 148) (same); (ECF No. 175) (same); (ECF No. 183) (same); (ECF No. 184) (same); (ECF Nos. 190-191) (same.) The conclusion that attorneys Pietz and Ranallo failed to serve their papers on the pro se persons is supported by the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Re: Fees and Costs. (ECF No. 102.) In his declaration, Mr. Pietz conspicuously declines to seek recovery for service costs with respect to pro se persons. (See ECF No. 102-1 at 15-16.) Mr. Pietz’s failure to seek recovery for these costs 2 MOTION TO VACATE No. 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Pocument 197 Filed 06/21/13 Pagé 3 of 7 Page ID #:3663 oO Oo Ss DH A SF WH HO — — i] was not an act of generosity. (See, e.g. id. at 16) (seeking recovery of $10 in advanced costs for Blair Chintella’s “Gas/Paper/Toner”.) The Declaration of Nicholas Ranallo Re: Fees and Costs also fails to seek recovery for pro se service costs. (See id. at 20-22.) Finally, the persons who appeared pro se in this matter have affirmed that attorneys Pietz and Ranallo failed to serve papers on them. Il, THE FAILURE OF ATTORNEYS PIETZ AND RANALLO TO SERVE PRO SE PERSONS WITH PAPERS IS A SEVERE DUE PROCESS VIOLATION “The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard.” Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 (1970) (citing Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385, 394 (1914)). Movant has been denied his due process right to be heard because these proceedings have been conducted ex parte with respect to him ever since May 17, 2013, when his counsel withdrew from representation.! Since that date Mr. Steele has not been served with any paper by attorneys Pietz or Ranallo. Yet, attorneys Pietz and Ranallo have filed papers asking the Court to impose an enormous additional | bond on Movant (ECF 175), to require Movant to consent to onerous bond conditions (id.), to have the Court strike the plaintiff’s complaint as a further sanction (ECF No. 183), and to define “Prenda parties” as including Mr. Gibbs (id.). Movant has not had an opportunity to respond to any of these efforts and now finds himself in a position where he is facing crippling monetary sanctions if he fails to comply with requests that were granted ex parte. The Star Chamber tactics of attorneys Pietz and Ranallo have no place in a United States district court. Due process concerns are particularly strong where, as here, the Court adopted the putative John Doe’s proposed order without alteration. (See, e.g, ECF No. 176) (adopting the putative John Doe’s proposed order, including his counsel’s signature block); (see also ECF No. 177) (amending the proposed order to remove the signature block, footer text and emphasis.) The fact that other persons may have submitted papers to oppose the efforts of attorneys Pietz and Ranallo is meaningless. The oppositions were submitted by individuals whose interests ' For the sake of clarity, Mr. Steele has been served with papers filed by Messers. Hansmeier and Duffy and those filed by Prenda Law, Inc. 3 MOTION TO VACATE No. 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-IC Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 197 Filed 06/21/13 Pagé 4 of 7 Page ID #:3664 diverge from Movant's. Prenda Law, Inc., Mr. Duffy and Mr. Hansmeier, for example, sought independent representation from Movant during the order to show cause proceedings. Ill. THE BRAZEN MISCONDUCT OF ATTORNEYS PIETZ AND RANALLO DEMANDS A COMMENSURATE SANCTION This Court should take a hard line against the brazen misconduct of attorneys Pietz and Ranallo. Submitting scores of papers to the Court without serving them on opposing persons does not just smack of fraud—it is fraud. The order to show cause proceedings and subsequent bond proceedings have been conducted ex parte with respect to pro se individuals. An inadvertent failure to serve a paper or two might be the product of an innocent oversight; an unbroken pattern of doing so is fraud on the court? The integrity of the judicial system depends on the proper functioning of the adversary process, Courts place trust in litigants to serve one another with their papers. When licensed attorneys maliciously disregard this fundamental obligation, a court may find that “the very temple of justice has been defiled.” Universal Oil Co. v. Root Rfg. Co., 328 U.S. 575, 580 (1946). In such circumstances, this Court may disbar those admitted to practice before it, impose monetary sanctions and order remedial measures. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991). At a minimum, Movant respectfully requests the Court to vacate the imposition of the $135,933.66 attorneys’ fee bond, vacate the imposition of new bond conditions, refer attorneys Pietz and Ranallo to the Standing Committee on Discipline of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and order attorneys Pietz and Ranallo to properly serve every paper submitted in this matter on every pro se person. Further, the Court should impose monetary sanctions on attorneys Pietz and Ranallo in an amount that will help reimburse the pro se persons for ? Notably, this is not the only attempt by attorneys Pietz and Ranallo to subvert the adversary process. In the “Stipulation Between Movant Brett L. Gibbs and Attorney Morgan E. Pietz” (ECF 178), Pietz and Ranallo colluded with Gibbs to seek affirmative relief against the “Prenda parties” without using proper motion procedures. This was an attempt to defraud the Court because Pietz, Gibbs and Ranallo all benefited from the proposed stipulation while the “Prenda parties” stood to lose, thus necessitating notice and an opportunity to be heard. 4 MOTION TO VACATE No. 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-IC -Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC [pocument 197 Filed 06/21/13 Pag@5 of 7 Page ID #:3665 — ‘Oo co ~J nN wr > we NI the attorneys’ fees they incur in evaluating their legal position in light of attorney Pietz’s and Ranallo’s fraud on the Court. | The undersigned has conferred with prospective counsel and learned that a $10,000.00 retainer will be required to procure legal advice on addressing the brazen misconduct of attorneys Pietz and Ranallo. Because there are ten’ pro se persons affected by the service failures, the grand total compensatory sanction imposed on attorney Pietz and Ranallo should be $100,000.00. The Court has placed enormous trust in attorneys Pietz and Ranallo to conduct themselves according to the highest ethical standards in this proceeding. Attorneys Pietz and Ranallo have betrayed that trust. 2 CONCLUSION The Court should vacate the orders described herein and impose sanctions on attorneys Pietz and Ranallo. Respectfully submitted, DATED: June 21, 2013 John Steele Miami\Beach, Florida 33139 Pro Se 3 The ten pro se persons affected by the brazen misconduct of attorneys Pietz and Ranallo are: (1) John Steele; (2) Paul Duffy; (3) Paul Hansmeier; (4) Mark Lutz; (5) Angela Van Den Hemel; (6) Peter Hansmeier; (7) AF Holdings, LLC; (8) Ingenuity 13, LLC; (9) Livewire Holdings, LLC; and (10) 6881 Forensics, LLC. 3 MOTION TO VACATE No. 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC ‘Document 197 Filed 06/21/13 Pagé 60f7 PagelID#:3666 - Co eo I DR UW BB WwW BH -& i —_ oS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INGENUITY 13 LLC, CASE NO. 2:12-CV-8333-ODW (JCx) . Plaintif, v. Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, Ii Magistrate Judge: Hon. Jacqueline Chooljian JOHN DOE, Defendant. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED THAT: I, the undersigned, am a citizen of the United States and am at least eighteen years of age. My address is 1111 Lincoln Road, Suite 400, Miami Beach, FL 33139. I have caused service of: JOHN STEELE’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO VACATE ORDERS AND FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE On the following parties via U.S. Mail first-class, postage prepaid: fee oe _ Klinedinst PC PN.Clark of ote. 501 West Broadway, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60601 | San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-8131 Fax: (619) 238-8707 e-mail: hrosing@klinedinstlaw.com e-mail: dmajchrzak@klinedinstlaw.com Ingenuity13, LLC Springates East Government Road Charlestown, Nevis Livewire Holdings, LLC 2100 M Street Northwest, Suite 170-417 Washington, D.C. 20037 6881 Forensics, LLC Springates East Government Road Charlestown, Nevis AF Holdings, LLC Springates East Government Road MOTION TO VACATE No. 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Case 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Pocument 197 Filed 06/21/13 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:3667 oOo So NHN DN HR BP OwOULUNDO Ce ee ed WwW NO = 14 Charlestown, Nevis ae ee eee Brett L. Gibbs Pro Se Mark Lutz Pro Se 2100 M Street Northwest, Suite 170-417 Washington, D.C. 20037 Paul Duffy Pro Se 2N. La Salle St. St., 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 900 IDS Center 80 South 8" St. Angela Van Den Hemel Pro Se 2100 M Street Northwest, Suite 170-417 Washington, D.C. 20037 Non-Party Putative John Doe Morgan Pietz (SBN 260629) Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 mpietz@pietzlawfirm.com 38 Miller Avenue, #263 ore Minneapolis, MN 55402 | The Pietz Law Firm Telephone: (310) 424-5557 Mill Valley, CA94941 Alpha Law Firm, LLC Peter Hansmeier Pro Se 2100 M Street Northwest, Suite 170-417 Washington, D.C. 20037 3770 Highland Ave., Ste. 206 Facsimile: (310)546-5301 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 21, 2013. 7 MOTION TO VACATE No, 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC