Case [P:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page 1of16 Page ID #:3702

||| HELLER & EDWARDS
Lawrence E. Heller, Esq. - Bar No. 69770
2 || Iheller@hellerandedwards.com
9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
3 || BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212-2982
Telephone: (310) 550-8833
4! Facsimile: (310) 858-6637

5 Specially Appearing for Morgan E. Pietz and Nicholas Ranallo

6
a
: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10! INGENUITY 13, LLC, a Limited Liability | USDC Case No.: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC
11 | Company Organized Under the Laws of the | [Consolidated with Case Nos. 2:12-cv-6636;
Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis, 2:12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv-6662; 2:12-cv-6668]
ue Plaintiff, | MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
13 AUTHORITIES IN RESPONSE TO
>i vs. STEELE'S MOTION FOR
14 RECONSIDERATION AND RELATED
JOHN DOE, “NOTICES"; COUNTER MOTION TO
15 STRIKE AND FOR SETTING AN OSC RE:
Defendant. | SANCTIONS
16 [ECF Nos. 201, 202, 203, 204, 205]
17 as concurrently with the Declarations of
awrence E. Heller and Morgan E. Pietz]
1 DATE: July 12, 2013
19 TIME: 11:00 a.m. ;
Courtroom: 11 [The Honorable Otis D.
0 Wright]
//
22
H
94
2) //
5
24 )
2
25 //
26 /
;
27 //
28

1 Opposition to Steele Motion. wpd

Case

—

Oo eo IN DW A BR WH WN

VI.

:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page 2of16 Page ID #:3703

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION pxiiaa carta he epeanns Ae Guendeoradeutes ss neauekenesant 1
NOMI FORESEES EONREEA HON IMPROPER DECAL

STEELE HAS VIOLATED HIS DUTY TO MAINTAIN UPDATED ONT AST
INFORMATION WITH THE COURT ........... 0. ccc ccc eevee eeeeeeeeuas

MORE DOCTORED DOCUMENTS, MORE LYING ...............2.00000- 6
A. Purposefully Omitted Email Header on Steele’s Exhibit 1 ............... 6
B. Proof of Steele Had Actual Notice on the Bond Issue .................. 7
STEELE SHOULD BE SANCTIONED ............ 000 ccc eecc eee eueeeues 10
CONCLUSION sce canitadyGdesdatarpaniedikeddoath ead twedetarawnnees 1]

i Opposition to Steele Motion.wpd

Case

:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page 3o0f16 Page ID #:3704

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Ausmus v. Lexington Ins. Co.
(S. D. CAL 2007) 2009 WL 2058549 ,*2 ooo ccc cee ccc eee. 3,4
Costello v. United States Gov't
(C.D. Cal 1991) 765 F. Supp 1003 2... 0... c cece ec ceeeeeecee. 4
Kona Enterprises, Inv. v. Estate of Bishop
(9" Cir. 2000) 229 F.3d 877 00.0. e cece cece cece eee eeneccecec cee 4
National Ecological Found. v. Alexander
(6" Cir. 2007) 477 F.3d 466 2000.0 ccc cece cece cece ce ceceeeeceeeccey 3
Orange St. Partners v. Arnold
(9" Cir. 1999) 179 F.3d 656 00... cece cece cece eee eeneneeceeneees 4
School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACands, Inc.
(9" Cir. 1993) 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 Jo... cece ccc ccc cece ceeeeeeeee. 3,4
Siegsworth y. City of Aurora
(7" Cir. 2007) 487 F.3d 506 0.0... cece cece cece ncn eueueeseceveveveeeg 3
Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co.
(9" Cir, 1994) 26 F.3d 885 2... c cee cece eucnsntueveveceey 3
STATUTES
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11(b)(1-4) 2.0... ce cee cee evens 10
Rule: 59(6)\ic utes ens sah deodopiedetedareanea deen 3
RUSOUD) vircnce sean poe icuawsdietineateauiincs 3

ii Opposition to Steele Motion.wpd

Case

:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page 4of16 Page ID #:3705

I. INTRODUCTION

One might imagine that after being severely sanctioned by this court for what amounts
to no less than a criminal enterprise which exploited an unknowing court system in order to
extort an innocent citizenry, John Steele and his cohorts would think twice before filing frivolous
and procedurally defective motions.” One might imagine. Instead, apparently relying on the
misguided maxim (at least in this instance) that the best defense is a good offense, Mr. Steele
has filed a one-page document, which he styles as a “Motion for Reconsideration,” predicated
on his assertion that an email from attorney Morgan Pietz “may cause the court to reconsider its
position.” (Motion 1:17-18). Not surprisingly Mr. Steele’s “Motion for Reconsideration’ cites
no legal authority whatsoever.

To begin with, a motion for reconsideration must be predicated on newly-
discovered, material evidence, or new law. See L.R. 7-18. Specifically,

“A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made only

on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the

Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not

have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such

decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring

after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider

material facts presented to the Court before such decision. No motion for

reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in

support of or in opposition to the original motion.” L.R. 7-18.

Mark Lutz, Paul Hansmeier and Peter Flansmeier have filed what they call “Notices to the
Court,” which are unsworn pleadings which attempt to evidence that they have not received
certain pleadings since going pro se. Among numerous other defects, these “Notices” are
either verified, nor sworn to under penalty of perjury and, to the extent they have any
evidentiary value at all, should be struck or at least wholly ignored.

* The motion for reconsideration was originally filed at ECF No. 201. However, Steele omitted
the June 23" email from the original Motion for Reconsideration. Thereafter, Steele filed an
“Amended” Motion for Reconsideration at ECF No. 205, which was exactly the same as the
original motion, except that someone hand wrote the word “Amended” across the caption, and
it contains the missing Exhibit 1 email.

1 Opposition to Steele Motion.wpd

Case

oe

uo ON DR NH BR WD tL

:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page5of16 Page ID #:3706

But Mr. Steele makes no attempt to explain to the court in what manner the Pietz email
constitutes “new evidence”, or why Steele couldn’t have obtained that “evidence” prior to filing
the original “Emergency Motion to Vacate Orders and For Order to Show Cause” (ECF No. 197,
6/21/13) (‘Motion to Vacate”).

Mr. Steele’s argument in the Motion to Vacate was that his due process rights were
denied because, after going pro se on May 17, 2013, he was not served (by mail) with papers
filed by Pietz. His argument now on reconsideration is exactly the same, except for the addition
of the June 23 email from Pietz to the Prenda parties. But the June 23 email does not contain
any new facts; it merely confirms what Stecle argued on the Motion to Vacate. Moreover, the
evidence that Steele now urges as a basis for reconsideration was never disputed by Pietz, and
was presumably the exact evidence the Court considered when it summarily denied the Motion
to Vacate. A new email confirming an old fact is not the same as the disclosure of a new,
material fact. The latter is the standard for reconsideration, and the June 23 email from Pietz
to Steele et al. Comes nowhcre close to meeting that standard (see Section II below).

In the Motion to Vacate, Steele’s “evidence” was that Pietz supposedly “submitted scores
of papers. . without serving him.” (Motion to Vacate 1:15-16—bolding added). In the Motion
for Reconsideration, he similarly argues that “Pietz and Ranallo have fraudulently invoked the
Court's coercive power by filing requests for relief without notifying [Steele] and others.” But
the truth is that since Stecle and his contingent went pro se around May 16, 2013, Pietz has filed
two documents which were served by CM/ECF only. Neither of the documents at issue were
“requests for relief,” rather, they were an opposition to Paul Hansmeier’s motion for approval
of the bond (ECF No. 175. 6/3/2013) and an opposition to Prenda Law, Inc.’s motion for
reconsideration on the bond (ECF Nos. 183 and 184, 6/13/2013).

Moreover, as shown below, it is actually Steele and his fellow conspirators who are in
violation of the Court’s rules respecting the notification of change of contact information. See
L.R. 83-2.4. When those parties completed Substitution of Attorney forms releasing their special
counsel, they declined to provide email addresses, fax numbers, and telephone numbers, as

required by rule. See id.; ECF No. 143-1 (Steele’s Proposed Order on Request for Approval of

2 Opposition to Steele Motion.wpd

Case }P:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page 6of16 Page ID #:3707

Substitution of Attorney)?’ (see Section III below).

Exacerbating the frivolousness of Steele’s motion is that Steele apparently once again has
submitted a doctored document and engaged in intentional misrepresentations to this court in
furtherance of the motion (see Section IV below).

Although already sanctioned by this court, it is clear that neither Steele nor his contingent

have learned their lesson. As frivolous as Steele’s motion is, Pietz and Ranallo were compelled

to retain outside counsel to defend it. Pietz and Ranallo should be compensated for having to
respond to this baseless motion through the court’s issuance, on its own initiative, of an OSC re:
Sanctions or, alternatively, through the court’s setting of a hearing date for Pietz and Ranallo to
have their Rule | 1 sanctions motion heard (see Section V below).
It must be said: finally, enough is enough!
Il. MOVING PARTY’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS IMPROPER
BECAUSE IT FAILS TO PRESENT ANY NEW EVIDENCE

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly recognize motions for

“reconsideration” Rather, such motions are treated as motions to alter or amend a judgment or
order under Rule 59(e), or motions for relief from judgments or orders under Rule 60(b).
Steele’s motion would arguably fall into the former category.

It is axiomatic that motions for reconsideration are not vehicles for relitigating old issues,
unless the arguments or evidence was not available earlier. Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, 487
F.3d 506, 512 (7" Circuit, 2007); National Ecological Found. v. Alexander, 496 F.3d 466, 477
(6" Cir., 2007).

"Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is appropriate ‘if the district court (1) is

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in the

* Steele declines to provide phone, email and fax. Some of the others just miss one or two
categories of information.

‘See also, Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 892 n. 6 (9" Cir. 1994): “Evidence is not newly
discovered if it was in the sale possession at the time of summary judgment or could have been
discovered with reasonable diligence.”

3 Opposition to Steele Motion.wpd

Case #:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page 7 of16 Page ID #:3708

controlling law.'" Ausmus, 2009 WL 2058549, *2 (quoting School Dist. No.

1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.

1993).

Rule 59(e) provides for an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of
finality and conservation of judicial resources." Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229
F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). See also Ausmus, 2009 WL 2058549, *2 ("A Rule 59(e) motion
‘should not be granted absent highly unusual circumstances") (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners
v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).

"A motion to reconsider is not another opportunity for the losing party to make its

strongest Case, reassert arguments, or revamp previously unmeritorious arguments." Ausmus v.
Lexington Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2058549, *2(S.D. Cal. 2007). This rule reflects the Court's interest
in "preserving dwindling resources and promoting Judicial efficiency." Costello v. United States
Gov't, 765 F.Supp. 1003, 1009 (C.D.Cal 1991).

Steele’s “new” evidence is an email sent by Pietz on June 23, 2013 which Steele argues
“admits that (Pietz) has not served any of the pro se persons in this case with any papers.”
(Motion 1:18-19).” But, of course, Steele knew at the time he filed his initial Motion to Vacate
on June 21, 2013 that papers were being filed by Pietz and others (including apparently by this

court) that were only served through the court’s e-filing system. Indeed, in his Motion to Vacate

Steele specifically asserts that “the conclusion that attorneys Pietz and Ranallo failed to serve
their papers on the pro se litigants is supported by the Declaration of Morgan E. Pietz Re: Fees
and Costs (ECF 102). In his declaration Mr. Pietz conspicuously declines to seek recovery for
services with respect to pro se persons.” (Motion to Vacate 2: 24-27).

It is accordingly beyond cavil that Steele knew prior to filing his Motion to Vacate, and
that he specifically asserted therein, that Pietz failed to serve him documents after he went pro
‘From this pleader’s vantage point Pietz’ email can only be considered the exercise of a professional
ourtesy towards opposing counsel. “Having been alerted to the problem” (that Steele and his colleagues
vere supposedly no longer receiving ECF filings) Pietz states that, if only he had been previously advised,
e would “have been happy to get that taken care of that for you.” He then states that his secretary will
enceforth serve Stecle and the others with paper copies of future filings and offers to do so by email
ince the mailing costs “are likely to be taxed as part of the bond” which Steele and the others have just

osted.

4 Opposition to Steele Motion.wpd

Case

oO CO HD DD WH BB WD KBB m=

—_
So

1]

se, other than electronically. Pietz’ June 23" email, although sent after the Motion to Vacate was
filed and denied, does not even remotely constitute “new” evidence. At best, it is a reaffirmation
of the basis of Steele’s initial motion. Accordingly, the motion is improper and for that reason
alone

III.

:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page 8of16 Page ID #:3709

must be denied out of hand by the court.

STEELE HAS VIOLATED HIS DUTY TO MAINTAIN UPDATED CONTACT
SRS RE IMA EY HS DUTY TO MAINTAIN UPDATED CONTACT

INFORMATION WITH THE COURT

All litigants, including pro se litigants, must provide the Court and all parties with full

contact information, including telephone and email address,

“Dismissal - Failure of Pro Se Plaintiff to Keep Court Apprised of
Current Address. A party proceeding pro se shall keep the Court and
opposing parties apprised of such party’s current address and telephone
number, if any, and e-mail address, if any. If mail directed by the Clerk to
a pro se plaintiff's address of record is returned undelivered by the Postal
Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of the service date, such plaintiff
fails to notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties of said plaintiff's
current address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for

want of prosecution.” L.R. 41-6.

Further, in the event of a change ina pro se litigants contact information, he or she must

update the Court and serve notice on all parties in any pending actions,

“Notification of Change of Name, Address, Firm Association, Ti elephone
Number, Facsimile Number or E-Mail Address. .. An attorney who is a
member of the bar of this Court or who has been authorized to appear in a
case in this Court, and any party who has appeared pro se in a case pending
before the Court, and who changes his or her name, office address (or residence

address, if no office is maintained), law firm association (if any), telephone

number, facsimile number, or e-mail address must, within five (5) days of the
change, notify the Clerk of Court in writing. If any actions are currently pending,
the attorney or party must file and serve a copy of the notice upon all parties.”

5 Opposition to Steele Motion.wpd

Case fP:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page 9of16 Page ID #:3710

L.R. 83-2.4 (underlining added).

As evidenced by his motion to substitute in pro se, in the place of prior special counsel
(who was registered for CM/ECF service) John Steele has not provided this Court, or the
putative Doe defendant with complete contact information. ECF No. 143-1. Steele omits his
telephone number, email address, and fax number, although he surely has one of each. Jd
Steele, after all, is still an attorney, and is required to maintain that kind of information with the

Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission.”

Moreover, Steele himself has submitted evidence to this Court definitively establishing
that he maintains at least the email address: johnIstecle@gmail.com. Specifically, in his
“Amended” Motion For Reconsideration (ECF No. 205, pp. 6-7), Steele for. the first time
attaches as Exhibit 1 the email which he omitted from the original Motion for Reconsideration
(ECF No. 201), and which he swears, under penalty of perjury, that he received at the said email
address. Steele’s submission of the June 23 email confirms that he does in fact have an
email account he has used recently, and that he is therefore in violation of L.R. 41-6 and L.R.
83-2.4, for failing to provide that email address to the Court and to all parties. Similarly, Steele’s
Illinois ARDC page lists a phone number; so he has one of those too, which he has also
neglected to provide to the Court or the parties. There can be little doubt that he also has a fax
number he failed to disclose. In view of Steele’s violations of the local rule designed to facilitate

service of process, the instant motion is clearly brought in bad faith.

IV. MORE DOCTORED DOCUMENTS, MORE LYING

A. Purposefully Omitted Email Header on Steele’s Exhibit 1

In view of Mr. Steele’s sworn assertion that he actually did receive the June 23 email
from Pietz,” it is thus surprising that the email in question, which was sent to
johnIsteele@gmail.com, immediately bounced back to sender from that address. (See Pietz

Dec’l., Exhibit 1). In light of the bounce-back, there are only two possibilities: (i) either Steele

s http://www. iarde.org/lawyersearch.asp,

"Specifically, Steele avers, “Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an e-mail
I received from Morgan E. Pietz on June 23, 2013.” See ECF No. 205, p. 5 and Exhibit A
(underline added).

6 Opposition to Steele Motion.wpd

12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page 10of16 Page ID #:3711

Case

| | has somehow configured his Gmail account to automatically respond with false “Delivery to the
2 || following recipient failed permanently” messages to all emails he receives, even though he
3 |] actually does receive the messages; or (ii) as seems more probable, Steele did not receive the
4l| June 23" email directly, but rather it was forwarded to him by one of his cronies who was also
5 || included on Pietz’s email chain. A close look at the top of Steele’s Exhibit A shows partial text
6 || remnants®’, Moreover, the email is of an abnormally small size. Both of these facts strongly
7 | Suggest that a header has been cutoff at the top of the email to conceal how it was received. It
8 || seems apparent that Steele has purposefully omitted an email header, which would presumably
9 | show one of his co-conspirators forwarding the June 23" message from Pietz to whatever new

10 | email address Steele is using nowadays.

11 Since Steele’s motion, as well as his sworn affidavit, tacitly rely upon the premise that

12 || he has not been in close contact with Paul Hansmeier, Paul Duffy, and counsel for Prenda Law,

13 || Inc., about the bond issue since going pro se, one can certainly understand why he may have

been tempted to cut out the header showing him communicating with these people. In other
words, in what would seem to be a truly Staggering—and foolish—bit of chutzpah, Steele
appears to have once again tried to slip a doctored document past this Court in the hopes of
getting his way.

Further, given that the john|steele@gmail.com email address was used by “someone” to
register certain Internet domain names to “Alan Cooper” at a Phoenix residence where Steele’s
Sister lived with Anthony Saltmarsh,” there can be little question as to why Steele might have

been tempted to discontinuc using that account. Using that email address potentially links Steele

to criminal identity theft activity. However, thanks to his recent filing. Mr. Steele has now

sworn, under penalty of perjury, that he has recently received email sent to
johnisteele@gmail.com, even though that may be perjury.

B. Proof Steele Had Actual Notice on the Bond Issue

* Above where it says “1 message.”

? See Exhibit T previously filed at ECF No. 53-1, p. 53 (but not received into evidence).

7 Opposition to Steele Motion.wpd

Case 4{12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page 110f16 Page ID #:3712

Another email from Steele, on which he may have copied Pietz inadvertently, further and
fatally undermines Stecle’s instant motion, and shows that the entire issue now before the Court
is (again) brought in bad faith 4“

According to Steele’s initial Motion to Vacate, filed June 21, 201 5, Steele “recently
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 [Steele].”

(emphasis added). Specifically, Steele points to two pleadings by Pietz (ECF Nos. 175 and 183)
which Steele complains he had “not had an opportunity to respond to”, namely papers where
Pictz and Ranallo:

“ask[ed] the Court to impose an enormous additional bond on Movant (ECF No.

175), to require Movant to consent to onerous bond conditions (id), to have the

Court strike plaintiff's complaint as a further sanction (ECF No. 183), and to

define “Prenda parties” as including Mr. Gibbs (id.)” ECF No. 197, p. 3:11-15.LY

However, through what may have been an inadvertent slip-up, there is compelling
evidence that Steele was actually aware, or should have been aware of ECF No. 175 (Pietz’s
opposition to Duffy’s motion to approve the initial bond) since at least June 14, 2013. On May
23, 2013, Paul Duffy filed his motion to have the bond he posted on behalf of all Prenda parties
other than Gibbs approved by this Court (ECF No. 171)“ On June 3, 2013, Pietz filed a
response asking that the bond be conditionally approved, subject to certain conditions, and
subject to the posting of an additional bond (ECF No. 175). It is this document, ECF No. 175,
from early June, which Steele would later say he was denied an opportunity to respond to. On
June 6, 2013, the Court entered the proposed order submitted with the response, conditionally

approving the bond, as requested by Pietz (ECF No. 176). On June 11, 2013, Prenda Law, Inc.

The additional email also establishes that John Steele has also recently been sending emails
from johnlsteele@gmail.com, not just receiving email at that addréss.

“To the extent Steele’s motion makes any sense, his complaint seems to be that he was not
served those two documents, both of which, as noted above, were oppositions to motions filed
by parties other than Steele, and both dealt with the bond issue.

B “Aithough this ace ee file-stamped on May 23, 2013, it was not actually served via
ECF until May 29, 2

8 Opposition to Steele Motion.wpd

Case 4{12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:3713

through associate Philip Vineyard of the Kleindinst Firm, announced by email to all parties
(including to johnisteele@gmail.com) that they would be appealing the Court’s order on the
bond (i.e. appealing ECF No. 176) and filing an emergency motion seeking relief from the Ninth
Circuit on that issue. (Pietz Dec’l., Exhibit B.)

By itself, the email from Philip Vineyard to Steele et al. Would have been sufficient to
put Steele on notice of the fact that proceedings were underway in the District Court on the bond

issue. See id. at pp. 1-2. The fact that Prenda was appealing the issue would also have put Steele

on notice that the bond proceedings had not gone as his similarly situated counterparts may have
hoped. However, that is not all that happens on the email thread.

On June 14, 2013, at 9:54 AM, Mr. Vineyard circulated to all parties what he styled a
“pre-cxecuted version of Prenda Law’s emergency motion to the Ninth Circuit” on the bond
issue, /d. at. p. 11.

About a half hour later, at 10:20 AM, John Steele wrote back to Mr. Vineyard, copying
Pietz, saying,

“Philip,

Great motion. On page 5, I want to take issue with the bottom of the page, right

before footnote 23. No one that I am aware of (on our side) stated that Prenda or

anyone else had a policy of demanding a settlement amount just low enough to

avoid legal action. This is something the bad guys always claim.” /d. at 14.

Vineyard then wrote back a few minutes later saying “Thanks, John. I shall amend the
motion to reflect this perspective.” Both the “pre-execution” version Vineyard circulated,
which Steele apparently reviewed and provided guidance on, as well as the final version

ultimately filed with the Ninth Circuit, extensively discuss Pietz’s opposition to Duffy’s motion

“ This obviously begs the question of why counsel for Prenda Law, Inc., whose “sole principal”
is supposedly Paul Duffy is taking their marching orders from Steele, a party with which Prenda
likely has a conflict (particularly in view of Hansmeier’s deposition testimony that obtaining the
Alan Cooper signature was all Steele’s doing). This email is further evidence that Steele and his
associates have been in close coordination regarding the remaining litigation issues in this action,
as well as in the 8 (at last count) various appeals that have been spawned from this case.

9 Opposition to Steele Motion.wpd

Case

Wa > ws) tO —

oO CO NH

12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page 13 0f16 Page ID #:3714

to the approve the bond (ECF No. 175)’ Clearly, Steele reviewed Vineyards motion on June
14, 2013, and Vineyard’s motion discusses at length the opposition (i.e., ECF No. 175) to which
Steele states he was denied an opportunity to respond because he was unaware of it. There can
be no question that Steele had every opportunity to respond to Pietz’s opposition, despite his
false claims, which form the basis of his motion, to the contrary.

Further, Steele has known that there would be a dispute about the amount and conditions
of the bond since at least May 20, 2013. See ECF No. 175-2, pp. 1-5 (meet and confer email
from Pietz to Prenda parties, including to johnIsteele@gmail.com, which was ignored by all of
them, except for some nonsensical ramblings from Mr. Duffy).

In view of all this evidence, it seems that Steele was just about as “shocked” about the
bond issue before this Court as Captain Renault was to find that gambling was going on at
Rick’s Café Americain. (See Cap’t. Renault, Casablanca, Warner Bros. (1942)). The instant
motion is only the latest example of Steele’s bad faith, and to the extent that Steele argues his
lack of actual knowledge of the bond litigation in this Court, he is clearly lying.

Vv. STEELE SHOULD BE SANCTIONED

Simply, the instant motion is frivolous in the extreme both procedurally and factually, and
has been a waste of time for all concerned. Moreover, it is not the first frivolous motion that
attempts to sanction Pietz that the Prenda parties have filed in this case. See ECF No. 22 (motion
to sanction Pietz). Despite the baselessness of the motion, Pietz and Ranallo were compelled
to engage outside counsel to defend them in this matter. Simply, Steele should pay the tab. He
has repeatedly demonstrated that he holds this Court in low esteem, that he will flout the rules,
and engage in bad faith of the very worst kind. No sanction is too severe.

Both of Steele’s motions fulfill the requirements of Fed. Rules Civ.Pro, Rule 11(b) 1
through 4). The motions were brought to harass, delay and unreasonably increase the cost of

litigation; are not warranted by existing law (improper motion to reconsider), and have no

“A copy of the “pre-execution” version circulated by Vineyard and reviewed by Steele is
attached to the Pietz Dec’|. as Exhibit 3. The final, as-filed version of the appellate motion is
available at Ninth Circuit No. 13-55881, ECF No. 9, 6/14/13. Other than with respect to
incorporation of Mr. Stcele’s comments, there do not appear to be any other differences between
the two versions.

10 Opposition to Steele Motion.wpd

Case

& WD NH =

Lo)

12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page 14o0f16 Page ID #:3715

evidentiary support whatsoever.

Based thereon, Pietz respectfully requests that this court, pursuant to its own initiative,
set an Order to Show Cause hearing for Steele to show why his conduct in filing both motions
is not a violation of Rule 11(b) or, alternatively, set a date for Pietz and Ranallo to bring a
motion for sanctions against Steele.

VI. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Attorneys Morgan Pietz and Nicholas Ranallo respectfully
request that this court deny John Steele’s Motin to Vacate in it’s entirety and set an OSC Re:

Sanctions as requested herein.

DATED: July 8, 2013. HELLER & EDWARDS

By: /s/Lawrence E. Heller
Lawrence E. Heller
Attorney for Morgan Pietz and Nicholas Ranallo

11 Opposition to Steele Motion.wpd

Case df

12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page 15o0f16 Page ID #:3716

PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

___ [declare that I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to this action. My
business address is 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Fift Floor, Beverly Hills, alifornia, and I am
Supoyed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction this service was
made.

On July 8, 2013, I served the foregoing document described as

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN RESPONSE TO
STEELE'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND RELATED
“NOTICES"; COUNTER MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR SETTING AN
OSC RE: SANCTIONS [ECF Nos. 201, 202, 203, 204, 205]

on all interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy of the document in a
sealed envelope addressed as follows:

SEE PROOF OF SERVICE LIST

a BY MAIL as follows: I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I know
that the correspondence was deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same
day this declaration was executed in the ordinary course of business. I know that the
envelope(s) was (were) sealed, and with postage thereon fully prepa laced for
collection and mailing on this date in the United States Mail at Los ngeles, California.

a) BY PERSONAL SERVICE as follows: I caused such pee’ 6 be delivered by
hand to the addressee(s) by Viessenger Service.
Delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney’s office by leaving the documents,
in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a
receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, between the hours of nine in the
morning and five in the evening.

8 BY OVERNIGHT COURIER SERVICE as follows: I caused the above-referenced
document to be delivered to for overnight courier service to
the addressee(s).

a BY ELECTRONIC MAIL (email) as follows: I electronically filed the document(s)
with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF electronic filing system. Participants
in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system.
Participants in the case who are not registered CM/ECF users will be served by mail or
by other means permitted by the court rules.

I declare under ey of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing
: ie and correct and that this declaration was executed on July 8, 2013, at Beverly Hills,
alifornia.

/s/Cora Mayrina
Cora Mayrina

Case

—

oO Oo YN DR A BR WwW PN

:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC Document 207 Filed 07/08/13 Page 16 of16 Page ID #:3717

PROOF OF SERVICE LIST

ey 13, LLC v. John Doe
USDC Case No.: 2:12-cv-08333-ODW-JC
[Consolidated with Case Nos. 2:12-cv-6636; 2: 12-cv-6669; 2:12-cv-6662; 2:12-cv-6668]

John Steele, Pro Se

1111 Lincoln Road Via Federal Express and email to “johnsteele@gmaile.com
MIAMI BEACH FL 33139

Via U.S. MAIL and email (where available)

Brett L. Gibbs, Esq., Pro Se
28 Altamont Avenue

Mill Valley, CA 94941
(415) 381-3104
brett.gibbs@gmail.com

Paul Hansmeier, Pro Se
Alpha Law Firm LLC

80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 234-5744

prhansmeier@thefirm.com

Paul Duffy, Pro Se

2 N. LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
312-952-6136

Fax: 312-346-8434
paduffy@wefightpiracy.com

Pro se and for Ingenuity 13, LLC and for AF Holdings, LLC

Mark Lutz, Pro Se

Peter Hansmeier, Pro Se

c/o Livewire Holdings, LLC
2100 M Street Northwest
Suite 170-417

Washington, D.C. 20037

Angela Van Den Hemel, Pro Se
PRENDA LAW INC.

161 North Clark Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60601

Peter Hansmeier

c/o Livewire Holdings, LLC

2100 Street Northwest, Suite 170-417
Washington DC 20037

By ECF Electronic Notice:
Prenda Law, Inc., through counsel Heather Rosing, Esq., and Philip Vineyard, Esq.

Putative John Doe, through counsel Morgan Pietz, Esq., and Nicholas Ranallo, Esq.
Morgan Pietz and Nicholas Ranallo, through special counsel Lawrence Heller, Esq