Santos Casaus
1
Attorneys’ Business Address
2
City, ST ZIP Code
Phone | Fax
3
4
Defendant in pro per
5
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
7
CIVIL DIVISION
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
DAVID TUSHIN ET. AL, Plaintiff,
vs.
SANTOS CASAUS, Defendant
Case No.: 20VECC00708
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
16
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
17
Please take notice that on Date at Time, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the 18
above court, Defendant will and hereby does move the Court for an Order granting Clarification 19
in his favor.
20
21
This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the subsequent Motion for Clarification, and
22
such oral or documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the hearing of the Motion. 23
24
Dated this ____ day of July, 2022.
25
26
27
28
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION – 1
Respectfully Submitted,
1
2
___________________________________
Santos Casaus,
3
Defendant in pro per
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION – 2
Santos Casaus
1
Attorneys’ Business Address
2
City, ST ZIP Code
Phone | Fax
3
4
Defendant in pro per
5
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
7
CIVIL DIVISION
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
DAVID TUSHIN ET. AL., Plaintiff,
vs.
SANTOS CASAUS, Defendant
Case No.: 20VECVOO708
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
COMES NOW Santos Casaus, Defendant, who moves for clarification of the Order issued by this 16
Honorable Court on August 13, 2020, and for cause would show this Court as follows: 17
18
1. The Order issued on August 13, 2020 instructed Mr. Grant Stephenson to receive
19
documents from Mr. Tushin on behalf of Mr. Casaus. Exhibit 1.
20
2. Mr. Casaus has gone ahead to file a complaint with The State Bar of California stating that 21
Mr. Stephenson engaged in the unlawful practice of law when he received documents on 22
behalf of Mr. Casaus. Mr. Stephenson received correspondence from The State Bar of 23
24
California stating that his action of receiving documents on behalf of Mr. Casaus amount
25
to the unlawful practice of law.
26
3. Had Mr. Stephenson failed to receive the documents on behalf of Mr. Casaus, he would 27
have been liable for contempt of court pursuant to Penal Code § 166 punishable by 28
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION – 3
imprisonment in county jail for not more than one year, a fine of not more than $5,000, or 1
2
both.
3
4. Mr. Stephenson’s actions were in compliance with the order issued by this Court on August 4
13, 2020.
5
5. It is well presumed that the order issued by this Court on August 13, 2020 was a lawful 6
order made in consideration of the State of California.
7
8
REASONS WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to clarify that
9
Mr. Stephenson engaged in clerical work of receiving documents on behalf of Mr. Casaus, not the 10
unlawful practice of law.
11
12
Dated this ____ day of January, 2022.
13
14
15
Respectfully Submitted,
16
___________________________________
17
Santos Casaus,
Defendant in pro per
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION – 4
VERIFICATION
1
2
I, Santos Casaus, being duly sworn depose and say that I am the Defendant in the above-entitled
3
action, that I have read the foregoing Motion for Clarification and know the contents thereof. That 4
the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters and things stated upon 5
information and belief, and as to those things, I believe them to be true.
6
7
8
_________________________________
9
(Sign in the presence of a Notary Public)
10
11
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ___ day of ___________________, 2021. 12
______________________________
13
14
Notary Public
15
________________________________________
16
(Printed name of Notary Public)
17
My Commission Expires: ____________________
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION – 5
EXHIBIT 1
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division
Northwest District, Van Nuys Courthouse East, Department W
20VECV00708 August 13, 2020 DAVID TUSHIN, et al. vs SANTOS CASAUS 8:30 AM
Judge: Honorable Virginia Keeny CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: Ani Dastaryan ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: Rommel Villagonzalo Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): Jacques Tushinsky-Fox (Telephonic)
For Defendant(s): Santos Casaus
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order
The matter is called for hearing.
The Court having fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, now rules as follows:
The Ex Parte Application Ex Parte Application filed by Santos Casaus on 08/12/2020 is Granted in Part.
Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction is scheduled for 08/24/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department W at Van Nuys Courthouse East.
Defendant Santos Casaus is permitted to use $10,000 of the money from the blocked account to retain a licensed California attorney to represent him in preparation for and at the mediation. Remainder of the funds to be transferred no later than 8/17/20 to Client Trust Account of J.T. Fox. Plaintiff David Tushin is entitled in principle to also use $10,000 of company funds towards mediation, with the court to determine whether such funds have already been accessed by David Tushin.
Tushin is ordered to provide copies of all financial records for company from date of incorporation to present (including bank statements//ledgers, financial statements, invoices, payment received, tax returns, etc.) to Casaus via Grant Stephenson by 8/20/20.
Notice is waived.
Minute Order Page 1 of 1
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 )