Plaintiff in Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF XXX
FOR THE COUNTY OF XXX
| CASTER NORTH HOLLYWOOD STORAGE PARTNERS. L.P,,
Plaintiff, vs.
XXX, Defendant |
CASE NO.:
|
MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, Defendant ANDREW MADUK pursuant to CA Civ Pro Code § 663a, and files this Motion to Vacate this Court’s Order dated [ENTER DATE]. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:
- Factual Background
The fraud committed by the Plaintiff in this case started even before Plaintiff filed this matter in court. The agreement that Defendant entered was between A -1 Self Storage and not Plaintiff, Caster North Hollywood Storage Partners. L.P.
Defendant had been storing his items in unit 995 of the A-1 Self Storage. He did not owe money until the Covid 19 pandemic during which the California Covid authority and federal government paid a subsidy to the storage businesses to be lenient to their customers, so that they do not lose what they have in storage. The company that Defendant is working with is A-1 Self Storage. However, after the covid leniency passed, and the self-storage decided to sue Defendant, the suit was brought by a different entity that claimed to own the A-1 Self Storage. The new business calls itself Caster North Hollywood Storage Partners. L.P. dba A-1 Self Storage 5310 vineland Avenue XXX.
It is notable that the address above is the same as the A-1 self-storage where Defendant physically store his property. since 2015. Before the court case, Defendant had noticed the weird relationship and called the manager of the storage facility whom he had been dealing with since XXX to find out why it was Caster North Hollywood was the entity bringing the suit. The manager said he could not answer Defendant’s question. He stated thus: “They told me not to answer any questions about your storage UNIT…” So, he never answered Defendant’s questions anymore. Besides, Defendant could not speak with him ever since because he no longer took Defendant’s calls. The Lady from Caster North Hollywood was therefore the one calling and emailing, while the legitimate manager of A-1 Self Storage gave his responsibility to her. Caster North Hollywood was therefore the entity that Defendant dealt with in Court.
It was Defendant’s intention to ask A-1 Self Storage why Caster had become the main company and assumed authority over the case. Defendant did not have anything to do with A-1 Self Storage and Defendant for 7 years, since he had been a customer of A-1 Self Storage. Defendant also wanted to ask the manager for A-1 Self Storage whether they sold the company to Caster. It is notable that Defendant also needed documentary proof that A-1 Self Storage had legally vested its authority to Caster, so that he brings the issue up in court on the day of trial. However, as Defendant has already stated, the A-1 Self Storage Manager refused to talk to him and answer said question. It is Defendant’s contention that A-1 Self Storage and Caster wanted to take his property. Notably, Plaintiff’s counsel had said the following before arbitration: “We just want you out of the storage space because you have been there for too long…” They all denied Defendant the knowledge he should have to plead his cause and the case before the court and the judge.
It is further notable that after the court case, the A-1 Self Storage manager who had refused to answer Defendant, sent emails asking whether Defendant had come in to pay $100 as agreed and move his stuff, and that the foregoing implying that Defendant was abandoning his property. He called Defendant three times and left messages detailing the court order and their victory that Defendant must pay the $100 and move by June 30, 2023, as stipulated by the court order. Defendant emailed him about 2 weeks ago that he does not have the facility to move yet, and that he did not have money for a facility.
It is Defendant’s contention that Caster has something to do with Ron Meyers and his mother, who are subject of Defendant’s related complaint. The woman who they introduced to Defendant in the year 2000 when Defendant went to sign a business partner, in which they seized Defendant’s startup and businesses because they said that Defendant was a criminal, a high school dropout who pretended that he had undergraduate and postgraduate degrees from Syracuse University. That woman who was said to live in Seattle Washington at the time, moved to A-1 Self Storage North Hollywood (a distance of over 1000 miles) to rent directly across from Defendant’s unit (#995). Notably, the unit they rented was #996, which was directly across from Defendant’s unit. And before Defendant could no longer afford to pay, Ron Meyers and his people were constantly at the facility, any time Defendant showed up. They were there but would just watch Defendant and not say a word. It is therefore questionable how they always knew Defendant would show up when Defendant was there. It was because the management told them.
Defendant has detailed some of the foresaid in a letter that he sent to the FBI, so they are aware of the continuing harassment and subjugative impositions Defendant has been suffering
- The decision is not consistent with the facts
A decision of the Court can be vacated or set aside if the legal basis for the decision is not consistent with or supported by the facts. See CA Civ Pro Code § 663a(a). Defendant asserts that the judge made the decision adopting the arbitration award without considering pertinent facts in the case. First, Defendant asserts that it was his intention to have the matter determined before this Honorable Court without going to arbitration. While Defendant admits to owing Plaintiff the alleged debt, it was Defendant’s intention to plead with this Honorable Court to extend the time to pay the debt. However, when Defendant got to court, the Plaintiff’s counsel told Defendant that she would like the matter settled through arbitration. The attorney further informed Defendant that going to arbitration would help resolve the case and that Defendant would not incur substantive cost.
Defendant expressed his disapproval with the Plaintiff’s counsel’s request. Further, Defendant stated why he needed the matter to be heard by this Honorable Court, so that he would request for additional time to settle the debt. It was also Defendant’s intention to avoid unnecessary processes that would otherwise lengthen the matter. Plaintiff’s counsel still assured Defendant that he should not worry since both could be done right away on the same day. She further assured Defendant that she had received instructions from her client, the plaintiff, to give Defendant a deal.
Defendant was oblivious of the fact that Plaintiff’s counsel already had the arbitrator arranged. To compound the counsel’s trickery, the arbitrator was deaf and dumb and could only communicate by sign language, which Defendant did not understand. Interestingly, Plaintiff’s counsel had already arranged for the interpreters. Defendant never got a chance to have a say in either the selection of the arbitrator and the interpreters. Also, the arbitral proceeding was itself ridden in confusion. The interpreters were shouting the meaning of the sign the arbitrator was making and everyone trying to understand what she was communicating, because they did not fully know what was going on.
Ultimately, Plaintiff’s counsel gave Defendant a document to sign. The document provided in pertinent part that Defendant had agreed to pay $100 to move his stuff by June 30, 2023, that he would keep everything said in the arbitration secret, and that he would lose his stuff if he failed to pay or move out of the storage unit.
When the arbitration document was presented to this Honorable Court, the Court agreed with the results thereof, and never probed whether it was arrived at amicably.
Defendant further asserts that the Court failed to probe the legitimacy and/or standing of the Plaintiff in instituting the suit against Defendant. As already stated in the facts, Defendant had entered an agreement with A-1 Self Storage, who was the legitimate creditor. It follows; Defendant could not understand why the Plaintiff would sue for a debt that is owed to a separate entity. The facts further showed how Defendant’s intention to seek clarification from the manager of A-1 Self Storage bore no fruits. Notably, the manager refused to answer Defendant’s communication and referred him to Plaintiff and their counsel. It was Defendant’s intention to present this information to the Court during trial, and to assert the violation of fair debt collection laws by Plaintiff.
The foregoing shows clearly how the Court’s decision was entered without a consideration of the facts regarding the fraud and the flawed arbitration process.
- The arbitration award was procured by fraud
The court shall vacate an arbitration award if it determines that the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means. See § 1286.2(a)(1). The party asserting a statutory basis for vacating an arbitration award bears the burden of establishing facts supporting their position. See XXX A party seeking to vacate an arbitration award on the ground that it was obtained through corruption, fraud, or other unfair means must establish the fraud by clear and convincing evidence, the fraud must not have been discoverable upon the exercise of due diligence prior to or during the arbitration, and the fraud materially related to an issue in the arbitration. See XXX.
First, Defendant asserts that the arbitration award was entered as a result of fraud. In the discussion above, Defendant has clearly explained how Plaintiff’s counsel exploited Defendant’s vulnerability by enticing Defendant to engage in the flawed arbitration process. The Plaintiff knew Defendant has financial difficulties and that he would not move out, and as such, they would own all Defendant’s possessions in the storage unit on XXX Notably, Defendant received a physical letter, which stated that if Defendant does not move his property by XXX by 5 PM, Defendant has forfeited his property and has granted them “WAIVER OF LAWS.
It follows; Plaintiff’s counsel lied to Defendant that the arbitration process would be fair and that everything would be in order. Contrary to said counsel’s statement, the arbitration process was already rigged against Defendant. Notably, Plaintiff’s counsel organized for an arbitrator without involving Defendant. Next, the counsel organized for interpreters without involving Defendant.
Second, there was no way for Defendant to discover the fraud at that time. Defendant even expressed his concerns over subjecting this matter to lengthy procedures that would be detrimental to him. Defendant further informed Plaintiff’s counsel that his intention was to request the Court to grant him extension of time to settle the debt. In response to Defendant’s concerns, Plaintiff’s counsel promised and/or assured Defendant that the arbitration process would be properly conducted.
Lastly, the fraud materially related to the issue of the settlement of the debt. Plaintiff’s counsel induced Defendant to subject to arbitration, so that Defendant would append his signature to the arbitration document that obligated Defendant to pay $100 to move his stuff by XXX. Had the matter been heard solely before this Honorable Court, Defendant would have requested the Court to grant him extension to pay the debt, and the matter would be concluded simply.
It follows; Plaintiff’s counsel committed fraud against Defendant, which fact nullifies not only the arbitration award, but also the Court’s decision that was based on the faulty award.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Defendant XXX, respectfully request that this Court reverse its Order affirming and/or confirming the arbitration award. Defendant also requests this Court void the arbitration award. Further, Defendant requests this Court grant Defendant further time to settle the debt, as he organizes his finances. Defendant also requests this Court issue an Order directing Plaintiff to allow Defendant to access Unit 995 to view the state of his properties. Lastly, Defendant prays for an Order granting such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
DATED:
Respectfully submitted,
XXX
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this day of , XXX, a copy of the foregoing was to:
[ENTER PLAINTIFF’ ADDRESS]
Date / XXX
XXX
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )