Case 3:16-cv-02186-WQH-MDD Document 82 Filed 08/18/17 PageID.3509 Page 1 of 5
1 2 3 4 5 6
SULLIVAN, KRIEGER, TRUONG, SPAGNOLA & KLAUSNER, LLP Eliot F. Krieger, State Bar No. 159647 EKrieger@SKTLawyers.com 444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1700 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 597-7070 Attorneys for Defendant DARREN D. CHAKER, individually, and as trustee of PLATINUM HOLDINGS GROUP TRUST
7 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10 11 SCOTT A. MCMILLAN, an individual, THE MCMILLAN LAW FIRM, APC, a 12 California professional corporation, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) DARREN D. CHAKER an individual, and ) as trustee of PLATINUM HOLDINGS ) GROUP TRUST, dba COUNTER ) FORENSICS; NICOLE CHAKER, an ) individual, and as trustee of NICOLE ) CHAKER TRUST ONE, VANIA ) CHAKER, an individual and as trustee of ) VANIA CHAKER TRUST ONE, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) )
Case No. 3:16-CV-02186-WQH-MD Judge: Hon. William Q. Hayes Courtroom: 14B Magistrate: Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin Courtroom: 11th Floor OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT DARREN D. CHAKER TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM OF RELATED CASES [CivLR 40.1] Complaint Filed: August 29, 2016 [PER CHAMBERS ORDER, NO ORAL ARGUMENT UNLESS ORDERED BY COURT]
Defendant, DARREN D. CHAKER, individually and as trustee of PLATINUM
23 HOLDINGS GROUP TRUST, dba COUNTER FORENSICS (“Darren”), submits this 24 Objection to the unfounded assertion by Plaintiffs SCOTT A. MCMILLAN, 25 (“McMillan”) and THE MCMILLAN LAW FIRM, APC’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) 26 that the above-captioned case is “related” to a previously filed proceeding captioned 27 United States v. Chaker, Docket No. 3:15-cr-07012-LAB. (See Doc. No. 1-1, p. 1, 28 Section VIII.) OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT DARREN D. CHAKER TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM OF RELATED CASES [CivLR 40.1]
Case 3:16-cv-02186-WQH-MDD Document 82 Filed 08/18/17 PageID.3510 Page 2 of 5
1
The Complaint in this case asserts three causes of action: two “RICO” claims
2 along with a “civil extortion” claim. As set forth in the pending Motion to Dismiss and 3 Motion to Strike (Doc. Nos. 55-56), these causes of action are meritless and fail to state 4 a claim upon which relief can be granted. 5
In the meantime, Darren’s Objection herein is filed to address the Plaintiffs’
6 improper characterization of the aforementioned prior proceeding as “related.” As set 7 forth in the Local Civil Rules, “[a]n action or proceeding is related to another action or 8 proceeding where both of them:” 9
“1.
Involve some of the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, or
2.
Involve the same property, transaction, patent, trademark, or event, or Involve substantially the same facts and the same questions of law.” (CivLR 40.1(g).)
10 11 12 13
3.
If any or all of these factors are present (which they are not), counsel has specific
14 obligations to the Court and opposing counsel: 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
“Whenever counsel has reason to believe that a pending action or proceeding on file or about to be filed is related to another pending action or proceeding on file in this or any other federal or state court (whether pending, dismissed, or otherwise terminated), counsel must promptly file and serve on all known parties to each related action or proceeding a notice of related case, stating the title, number and filing date of each action or proceeding believed to be related, together with a brief statement of their relationship and the reasons why assignment to a single district judge is or is not likely to effect a saving of judicial effort and other economies. The clerk will promptly notify the court of such filing. This is a continuing duty that applies not only when counsel files a case with knowledge of a related action or proceeding but also applies after the date of filing whenever counsel learns of a related action or proceeding.” (CivLR 40.1(f) (emphasis added).) Although this case has been pending for nearly a year, other than checking a box
24 on the Civil Cover Sheet, Plaintiffs’ counsel has failed to fulfill his responsibilities 25 regarding the filing of a Notice of Related Cases. Notably, Plaintiffs’ counsel has failed 26 to provide the requisite statement of “relationship” or provide any of the other pertinent 27 information required by CivLR 40.1. The purportedly related case, which originated in 28 the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (Docket No. 4:12-cr-00168) before 1 OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT DARREN D. CHAKER TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM OF RELATED CASES [CivLR 40.1]
Case 3:16-cv-02186-WQH-MDD Document 82 Filed 08/18/17 PageID.3511 Page 3 of 5
1 being transferred to this district for monitoring, arose out of a Texas real estate claim and 2 involves none of the same (alleged) facts as the instant case. Indeed, notwithstanding 3 Plaintiffs’ gratuitous inclusion of allegations regarding such case, the Texas case has 4 absolutely nothing to do with Plaintiffs’ instant RICO and extortion claims. (See 5 Complaint (Doc. No. 1), ¶¶ 23d-f, 24; First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 21) ¶¶ 23d-f, 6 24.) 7
Accordingly, this Court should deny Plaintiffs’ claim of “related cases” both
8 because the other identified case is in fact unrelated and due to Plaintiffs’ failure to 9 comply with Local Rules regarding a Notice of Related Cases. In addition, Plaintiffs’ 10 counsel’s failure to comply with their obligations regarding a Notice of Related Cases is 11 sanctionable. (See CivLR 83.1(a)1.) Moreover, Plaintiffs’ unsubstantiated claim of 12 related cases is nothing more than an ill-conceived attempt to impugn Darren’s 13 reputation (by referencing a wholly unrelated criminal proceeding) that improperly 14 “degrades or impugns the integrity of the court or in any manner interferes with the 15 administration of justice within the Court.” (CivLR 83.4(b).) As a result, this Court can 16 / / / 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 24
1
“Failure of counsel or of any party to comply with these rules, with the Federal 25 Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, or with any order of the court may be grounds for imposition by the court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within 26 the inherent power of the court, including, without limitation, dismissal of any actions, 27 entry of default, finding of contempt, imposition of monetary sanctions or attorneys' fees and costs, and other lesser sanctions.” (CivLR 83.1(a).) 28 2 OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT DARREN D. CHAKER TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM OF RELATED CASES [CivLR 40.1]
Case 3:16-cv-02186-WQH-MDD Document 82 Filed 08/18/17 PageID.3512 Page 4 of 5
1 initiate disciplinary and/or contempt proceedings against Plaintiffs’ counsel and/or 2 impose other appropriate sanctions. (CivLR 83.5(a)2.) 3 4 5 DATED: August 18, 2017 6
Respectfully Submitted, SULLIVAN, KRIEGER, TRUONG, SPAGNOLA & KLAUSNER, LLP
7 8
By:
9 10
/s/Eliot F. Krieger Eliot F. Krieger, SBN 159647 EKrieger@SKTLawyers.com
Attorneys for Defendant DARREN D. CHAKER individually, and as trustee of PLATINUM HOLDINGS GROUP TRUST, dba COUNTER FORENSICS
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2
“In the event any attorney engages in conduct which may warrant discipline or other sanctions, the court or any judge may, in addition to initiating proceedings for 26 contempt under Title 18 U.S.C. and Rule 42, Fed. R. Crim.P., or imposing other 27 appropriate sanctions, refer the matter to the disciplinary body of any court before which the attorney has been admitted to practice.” (CivLR 83.5(a).) 28 25
3 OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT DARREN D. CHAKER TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM OF RELATED CASES [CivLR 40.1]
Case 3:16-cv-02186-WQH-MDD Document 82 Filed 08/18/17 PageID.3513 Page 5 of 5
1 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on the 18th day of August 2017, I filed the foregoing document with
3 the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court, Southern District of 4 California by using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send notifications of such 5 filing to all counsel of record. 6 7
/s/ Eliot F. Krieger Eliot F. Krieger
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT DARREN D. CHAKER TO PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIM OF RELATED CASES [CivLR 40.1]