Free Amended Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 1 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 2 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

John Brosnan 848 North Rainbow Boulevard #1643 Las Vegas, NV Telephone: 510.779.1006 Facsimile: 925.237.8300

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA John Brosnan Plaintiff, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR NEW CENTURY HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST, CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC, PAUL WINDERS, DENNIS REIFERT, JOHN BOUZANE, PRIORITY POSTING AND PUBLISHING, APRICIA CORPORATION, CURTIS LAW GROUP, ROBERT A KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS AND DOES 1 - 99 Defendants. CASE NUMBER : C 08-04049 MEJ 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 2511 ­ ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING, THEFT P.C. § 211, NEGLIGENCE, FORCIBLE ENTRY - C.C.P. § 1159, FORCIBLE DETAINER ­ C.C.P. § 1160, BURGLARY ­ P.C. § 459, INVASION OF PRIVACY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, DESTRUCTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, VIOLATION OF C.C.C. § 789.3 ­ ILLEGAL TERMINATION OF TENANCY, ILLEGAL CONVERSION, PERSONAL INJURIES VERIFIED COMPLAINT

JOHN BROSNAN alleges as follows: JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND PARTIES 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1338, this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 1

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 3 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

over the state law claim because this claim is related to, and forms part of the same case or controversy as, the federal question claims. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391. JOHN BROSNAN ("BROSNAN") conducts business in the jurisdiction of this Court. The unlawful actions of the defendants were committed in the State of California and in the JOHN BROSNAN ("BROSNAN") is a natural person. BROSNAN is informed that DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS

judicial district of this Court.

INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR NEW CENTURY HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST is a business entity doing business in California ("DBN"). 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. business. 17. BROSNAN does not know the true names of the DOES listed above but will amend this complaint accordingly once their identities have been determined. 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 2 BROSNAN is informed that CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC ("CMS") is a BROSNAN is informed that Paul Winders ("WINDERS") is a California licensed real BROSNAN is informed that Dennis Reifert ("REIFERT") is a California licensed BROSNAN is informed and believes that JOHN BOUZANE ("BOUZANE") is a BROSNAN is informed and believes that Robert A Krasney ("KRASNEY") is a California BROSNAN is informed and believes that Express Evictions ("EXPRESS") is a California BROSNAN is informed that PRIORITY POSTING AND PUBLISHING ("PRIORITY") is BROSNAN is informed that APRICIA CORPORATION ("APRICIA") is a California BROSNAN is informed that CURTIS LAW GROUP ("CURTIS") is a California business. BROSNAN is informed that EXPRESS EVICTIONS ("EXPRESS") is a California California Limited Liability Company. estate broker. contractor. California licensed attorney. licensed attorney. business engaged in doing evictions. a California business. corporation.

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 4 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31 18.

FACTS On December 28, 2007, BROSNAN had possession of a property ("PROPERTY") that was

in foreclosure and had a scheduled foreclosure sale set for December 31, 2007. There is a house ("HOUSE") located on the PROPERTY. Personal property of BROSNAN'S was in the HOUSE. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. The PROPERTY is located in Richmond, California. The PROPERTY had foreclosure sale scheduled for December 31, 2007, at 1:30 PM. Heather Woodhull owned the PROPERTY ("WOODHULL"). BROSNAN was in the process of purchasing the PROPERTY from WOODHULL. BROSNAN had an approved loan to purchase the PROPERTY and an open escrow for the BROSNAN had secured a loan to purchase the PROPERTY from WOODHULL but In order to complete the closing of escrow on the PROPERTY, BROSNAN needed The loan servicing company handling the loan on the PROPERTY was CMS. On December 28, 2007, BROSNAN entered into an agreement ("AGREEMENT") with The person at CMS who drafted the AGREEMENT was Alicia Jimenez ("JIMENEZ"). On December 28, 2007, BROSNAN received the written AGREEMENT via fax from

purposes of purchasing the PROPERTY from WOODHULL. needed additional time beyond the December 31to close escrow on the purchase of the PROPERTY. additional time beyond the December 31, 2007, scheduled foreclosure sale.

CMS to postpone the scheduled foreclosure sale of the PROPERTY [Exhibit 1].

CMS wherein CMS agreed to postpone the sale of the PROPERTY if BROSNAN signed the fax and faxed it back to CMS as well as paying a postponement fee of $500. On Friday, December 28, 2007, BROSNAN faxed the signed AGREEMENT to CMS. [Exhibit 2]. 30. 31. 32. On Friday, December 28, 2007, BROSNAN called to confirm with JIMENEZ the receipt The AGREEMENT also called for $500 to be received by CMS by December 31, 2007. On Sunday, December 30, 2007, BROSNAN paid the $500 called for in the of the signed AGREEMENT; JIMENEZ confirmed receiving the signed AGREEMENT.

AGREEMENT by taking five hundred dollars in cash to Western Union and paying the money directly to CMS via their Western Union Quick Collect Account [Exhibit 3]. 33. APRICIA was involved in the foreclosure sale of the PROPERTY. On Monday, December 31, 2007, BROSNAN called APRICIA and informed them of the AGREEMENT. 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 3

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 5 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

APRICIA informed BROSNAN that APRICIA could do nothing about the impending PRIORITY was involved in the foreclosure sale of the PROPERTY. On Monday, PRIORITY informed BROSNAN that PRIORITY could do nothing about the impending CURTIS was involved in the foreclosure sale of the PROPERTY. On Monday, December CURTIS informed BROSNAN that CURTIS could do nothing about the impending On December 31, 2007, at or about 10:30 AM, Alicia Jimenez ("JIMENEZ") from CMS On December 31, 2007, at or about 10:30 AM, WOODHULL informed JIMENEZ that

foreclosure sale without instructions from CMS. December 31, 2007, BROSNAN called PRIORITY and informed them of the AGREEMENT. foreclosure sale without instructions from CMS. 31, 2007, BROSNAN called CURTIS and informed them of the AGREEMENT. foreclosure sale without instructions from CMS. called WOODHULL regarding the payment of $500. BROSNAN had paid $500 via the CMS Western Union Quick Collect Account and provided JIMENEZ with the Receipt Information. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. On December 31, 2007, at 1:30 PM, in violation of the AGREEMENT; CMS caused the BROSNAN was not aware that the PROPERTY had been sold at auction. CMS, DBN, APRICIA, PRIORITY and CURTIS were involved with the sale of the At some date unknown to BROSNAN, CMS hired WINDERS to handle the disposition of On or about January 16, 2008, WINDERS contacted BROSNAN and informed BROSNAN WINDERS demanded that BROSNAN give the keys to the PROPERTY to WINDERS and BROSNAN did not believe that the PROPERTY had been sold at auction due to the When a trustee sells a PROPERTY at a foreclosure sale the trustee generates what's known The TDS is recorded at the county recorders office to publicly publish the change of 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 4 PROPERTY to be sold at a foreclosure auction ("SALE").

PROPERTY in violation of the AGREEMENT. the PROPERTY. WINDERS, is a licensed California Real Estate Broker. that the PROPERTY had been sold at auction. that BROSNAN immediately vacate the PROPERTY. AGREEMENT in place postponing the sale of the PROPERTY. as a Trustee's Deed Upon Sale ("TDS").

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 6 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

ownership of the PROPERTY. 50. 51. 52. No TDS regarding the SALE was recorded as of January 16, 2008. BROSNAN informed WINDERS that BROSNAN would speak to WINDERS about the BROSNAN believed that WINDERS was attempting to perpetrate a scam upon

PROPERTY once WINDERS provided BROSNAN with the TDS. BROSNAN, which is why BROSNAN asked that WINDERS provide BROSNAN with the TDS. Since BROSNAN believed that the PROPERTY had not been sold due to the AGREEMENT BROSNAN felt that WINDERS would not be able to provide a TDS and WINDERS would leave BROSNAN alone. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. On or about January 16, 2008, BROSNAN contacted CMS to speak to JIMENEZ about the BROSNAN was unable to reach JIMENEZ and left a message for JIMENEZ to call BROSNAN called JIMENEZ several times in order to speak to her regarding the JIMENEZ refused to return BROSNAN'S calls due to the fact that CMS had violated the CMS wanted BROSNAN forced out of the PROPERTY. CMS wanted BROSNAN out of the PROPERTY so that CMS could sell the PROPERTY After several failed attempts to speak to JIMENEZ, BROSNAN attempted to speak to PROPERTY and WINDERS. BROSNAN regarding the PROPERTY. JIMENEZ did not return BROSNAN'S call. PROPERTY; JIMENEZ did not return any of BROSNAN'S calls. terms of the AGREEMENT.

on the open real estate market and make a profit. another person at CMS regarding the PROPERTY. Each time BROSNAN attempted to speak to another person at CMS regarding the PROPERTY, BROSNAN was told that he would have to speak to JIMENEZ because JIMENEZ was handling the file related to the PROPERTY. 60. 61. 62. 63. During the time BROSNAN was trying to contact JIMENEZ, WINDERS continued to WINDERS informed BROSNAN that BROSNAN would be arrested for trespassing if BROSNAN continued to check with the recorders office and found no TDS for the SALE Toward the end of the month of January 2008, BROSNAN discovered that the 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 5 contact BROSNAN and demand that BROSNAN vacate the PROPERTY. BROSNAN did not vacate the property. of the PROPERTY and therefore felt that WINDERS was attempting some kind of scam.

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 7 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

PROPERTY had been in fact been sold in violation of the AGREEMENT. 64. 65. BROSNAN contacted his loan broker, Robert Jacobsen, ("JACOBSEN") and informed him JACOBSEN informed BROSNAN that the lender understood the issues about the of what had happened and asked JACOBSEN what could be done to keep the loan in place. AGREEMENT being violated but that they could not hold the loan while BROSNAN dealt with the illegal SALE of the PROPERTY. 66. 67. BROSNAN lost his loan as a result of the sale of the PROPERTY. On or about February 2, 2008, WINDERS again contacted BROSNAN demanding that

BROSNAN immediately vacate the PROPERTY and give WINDERS the keys to the PROPERTY. BROSNAN again told WINDERS to provide BROSNAN with a TDS and then BROSNAN would speak with WINDERS. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. As of August 20, 2008, BROSNAN has not been provided with a TDS for the December As of March 1, 2008, No Unlawful Detainer action had been filed on the PROPERTY. As of March 1, 2008, no court order allowing entry to the PROPERTY had been issued. WINDERS did not have a court order allowing him to enter the PROPERTY. REIFERT did not have a court order allowing him to enter the PROPERTY. CMS did not have a court order allowing CMS entry to the PROPERTY. DBN did not have a court order allowing DBN entry to the PROPERTY BOUZANE did not have a court order allowing him entry to the PROPERTY. APRECIA did not have a court order allowing them entry to the PROPERTY. PRIORITY did not have a court order allowing them entry to the PROPERTY. CURTIS did not have a court order allowing them entry to the PROPERTY. CMS hired BOUZANE to evict BROSNAN from the property. In his statement to the Richmond Police, WINDERS refers to a company called Fast 31, 2007, foreclosure sale of the PROPERTY.

Evictions, which was handling the eviction of BROSNAN from the PROPERTY. The actual name of the company handling the eviction is Express Evictions. Express Evictions operates a website with an address of http://fastevictions.com. 81. 82. BOUZANE and KRASNEY are lawyers who work at a company called Express Evictions On February 5, 2008, WINDERS called BROSNAN and asked BROSNAN if BROSNAN 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 6 located in San Bernardino in California, the company WINDERS referred to as Fast Evictions.

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 8 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

would voluntarily vacate the property and turn over the keys to the PROPERTY. 83. 84. 85. On February 5, 2008, BROSNAN told WINDERS that BROSNAN would not vacate the On February 5, 2008, WINDERS spoke with BOUZANE about cutting the locks on the On February 5, 2008, BOUZANE told WINDERS to cut the lock on the gate to the PROPERTY or turn over the keys to the PROPERTY. property and entering the PROPERTY to change the locks. PROPERTY and enter the PROPERTY and change the locks on the HOUSE if WINDERS thought the PROPERTY appeared to be abandoned and that no one was in the residence. 86. On February 5, 2008, KRASNEY told WINDERS to cut the lock on the gate to the PROPERTY and enter the PROPERTY and change the locks on the HOUSE if WINDERS thought the PROPERTY appeared to be abandoned and that no one was in the residence. 87. On February 5, 2008, someone on the staff at EXPRESS told WINDERS to cut the lock on the gate to the PROPERTY and enter the PROPERTY and change the locks on the HOUSE if WINDERS thought the PROPERTY appeared to be abandoned and that no one was in the residence. 88. 89. WINDERS hired a contractor, REIFERT, to change the locks to the PROPERTY. On February 5, 2008, REIFERT arrived at the PROPERTY and knocked on the front door. WINDERS arranged to meet with REIFERT at the PROPERTY. No one answered the door but according to the statement REIFERT provided to the Richmond Police department he heard someone inside the HOUSE at the PROPERTY [Exhibit 4] so he called the police to do a civil standby while REIFERT changed the locks on the PROPERTY. 90. 91. 92. While waiting for an officer to arrive, REIFERT cut off a padlock on a gate at the Officer Anderson arrived at the PROPERTY and met with REIFERT. Officer Anderson and REIFERT entered the rear of the PROPERTY via the gate, which PROPERTY. Said padlock secured a gate which provided access to the rear of the PROPERTY.

had held the lock, which REIFERT has previously cut off. Officer Anderson and REIFERT did a security check of the PROPERTY and found that all the doors and windows were locked and secure except for a door leading to a garage located at the rear of the PROPERTY; the garage with the unlocked door is not attached to the HOUSE located at the PROPERTY. 93. WINDERS arrived and met with REIFERT and Officer Anderson. Officer Anderson explained to WINDERS and REIFERT that without a court order they could not enter the PROPERTY and nor could they change the locks. Officer Anderson ("ANDERSON") then left. 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 7

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 9 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99.

On February 5, 2008, after Officer Anderson left, WINDERS and REIFERT illegally On February 5, 2008, REIFERT changed the locks of the HOUSE on the PROPERTY. WINDERS did not replace the lock, which had been cut off the gate to the PROPERTY. REIFERT did not replace the lock, which had been cut off the gate to the PROPERTY. No TDS was recorded as of February 5, 2008. On or about February 5, 2008, WINDERS illegally removed personal property belonging

entered into HOUSE on the PROPERTY.

to BROSNAN from the PROPERTY. 100. On February 10, 2008, BROSNAN returned to the PROPERTY from a business trip to discover that a rear door to the PROPERTY was open. 101. BROSNAN entered the HOUSE and discovered that personal property of his was missing. 102. BROSNAN discovered that WINDERS had left several notices on the front door of the PROPERTY stating that WINDERS had entered the PROPERTY and changed the locks to secure the PROPERTY [Exhibit 5]. One of notices informed BROSNAN to call WINDERS. 103. BROSNAN called WINDERS to have BROSNAN'S personal property returned. 104. WINDERS told BROSNAN that if BROSNAN immediately vacated the PROPERTY and gave WINDERS the keys to the PROPERTY that WINDERS would consider returning BROSNAN'S property, BROSNAN hung up the phone and called the Richmond Police. 105. Officer Purcell of the Richmond Police came to the PROPERTY. BROSNAN informed Officer Purcell what WINDERS had done respective to breaking into the PROPERTY as well as taking personal property from the PROPERTY. BROSNAN further informed Officer Purcell about the phone call with WINDERS. 106. Officer Purcell called WINDERS and left a message for WINDERS. 107. WINDERS called Officer Purcell and informed him that what WINDERS had done was at the direction of the CMS and the attorneys for CMS. 108. CMS and the attorneys directed WINDERS to break into the PROPERTY, change the locks and take property belonging to BROSNAN. 109. BROSNAN was told to speak to Officer Vegas of the Richmond Police regarding the incident. When BROSNAN spoke with Officer Vegas and told Officer Vegas what had happened Officer Vegas informed BROSNAN that another officer would be contacting BROSNAN to take a report regarding the break in. 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 8

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 10 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

110. CMS through its agent BOUZANE told WINDERS to cut the locks on the PROPERTY. 111. CMS through its agent BOUZANE told WINDERS to enter the PROPERTY. 112. CMS through its agent BOUZANE told WINDERS to change the locks on the door. 113. CMS through its agent BOUZANE told WINDERS to take BROSNAN'S personal property and offer to consider returning it if BROSNAN moved out of the PROPERTY. 114. BROSNAN has demanded that CMS return BROSNAN'S personal property. 115. CMS has refused to return BROSNAN'S personal property. 116. BROSNAN has demanded that WINDERS return BROSNAN'S personal property. 117. WINDERS has refused to return BROSNAN'S personal property. 118. On or about February 12, 2008, BROSNAN spoke with Officer Joe Anderson ("ANDERSON") of the Richmond Police. ANDERSON informed BROSNAN that ANDERSON had met with WINDERS at the PROPERTY because WINDERS wanted ANDERSON to stand by while he entered the PROPERTY; ANDERSON informed WINDERS that without a court order WINDERS could not enter the PROPERTY; ANDERSON observed that the back door to the PROPERTY was locked after doing a security check of the PROPERTY; WINDERS informed ANDERSON that WINDERS was going to enter the house; ANDERSON informed WINDERS and REIFERT that for WINDERS or REIFERT to enter the house a court order was needed. 119. After ANDERSON left WINDERS and REIFERT broke into the house on the PROPERTY. 120. After breaking into the PROPERTY, WINDERS did not replace the lock he cut off the front gate. 121. After breaking into the PROPERTY, REIFERT did not replace the lock he cut off the front gate. 122. On or about February 13, 2008, Officer Bill Roderick ("RODERICK") of the Richmond Police contacted BROSNAN regarding the break in, burglary and taking a report regarding what had happened. 123. RODERICK contacted WINDERS and asked that WINDERS provide a statement as to what happened. In WINDERS statement, WINDERS stated that the back door to the PROPERTY was open when he went there with ANDERSON. 124. WINDERS admitted to RODERICK that WINDERS' failure to replace the padlock on the side gate to the PROPERTY was an oversight. 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 9

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 11 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

125. WINDERS explained to RODERICK that due to WINDERS' busy schedule that WINDERS and REIFERT had forgotten about the padlock on the side gate; which is why the padlock had not been replaced. 126. RODERICK informed BROSNAN that WINDERS had told RODERICK that WINDERS had recorded BROSNAN'S call to WINDERS. Said recording was not made with BROSNAN'S permission. Said recordation was a violation of federal law. 127. BROSNAN was not informed that WINDERS was recording the call BROSNAN made to WINDERS. 128. CMS directed WINDERS to illegally record BROSNAN'S call to WINDERS. 129. ANDERSON stated to Officer Roderick that the back door to the HOUSE was locked. 130. Officer Joe Anderson of the Richmond Police is being truthful about the back door. 131. WINDERS is lying about the back door. 132. WINDERS is claiming that ANDERSON is lying. 133. BROSNAN believes that ANDERSON is telling the truth. 134. BROSNAN believes that WINDERS is lying. 135. BROSNAN has not been provided with any legal documentation giving WINDERS, DBN, CMS or REIFERT the right to enter the property. 136. BROSNAN has not been provided with any legal documentation giving DBN, WINDERS, CMS or REIFERT the right to cut the lock off the gate. 137. BROSNAN has not been provided with any legal documentation giving DBN, WINDERS, CMS or REIFERT the right to break into the house. 138. BROSNAN has not been provided with any legal documentation giving DBN, WINDERS, CMS or REIFERT the right to take BROSNAN'S property. 139. BROSNAN has not been provided with any legal documentation giving DBN, WINDERS, CMS or REIFERT the right to refuse to return BROSNAN'S property. 140. DBN, WINDERS, CMS and REIFERT are illegally keeping BROSNAN'S property. 141. CMS is aware that BROSNAN lost his loan on the PROPERTY due to the breach of the AGREEMENT by CMS. 142. CMS and DBN refuse to replace the loan BROSNAN lost. 143. BROSNAN has been financially harmed by the illegal taking and withholding of his personal property by DBN, CMS and WINDERS. 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 10

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 12 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

144. DBN and CMS conspired to violate the AGREEMENT in order to steal the PROPERTY from BROSNAN. 145. WINDERS, in his statement to the Richmond Police [Exhibit 7] said that the Fast Eviction and its attorneys' and other staff told him that he could enter the PROPERTY and change the locks if he thought the PROPERTY was abandoned. WINDERS own contractor, REIFERT, called the Richmond Police because he stated that he thought he'd heard someone inside the house when he knocked on the front door when he arrived at the PROPERTY to change the locks. Based on the statement of REIFERT [Exhibit 4], which REIFERT himself provided to the Richmond Police regarding hearing someone inside the house, WINDERS and REIFERT should have left the PROPERTY when no one answered the front door. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them access to the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them the right to change the locks on the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT believing that someone was in the house felt they had the right to terrorize that person by cutting the lock off a gate and illegally entering the PROPERTY, take property belonging to BROSNAN and change locks to the PROPERTY. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION PERSONAL INJURY FEDERAL CLAIM VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 2511 ­ ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING DBN, WINDERS & CMS 146. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, and incorporates the same herein by this reference as though set forth in full. 147. Recordation of a phone call without the consent of both parties to the phone is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511. 148. WINDERS, DBN and CMS illegally recorded BROSNAN'S phone call to WINDERS. 149. DBN, CMS directed WINDERS to illegally record BROSNAN. 150. BROSNAN'S rights were violated when WINDERS illegally recorded BROSNAN. 151. BROSNAN has the right to be informed when a telephone conversation is being recorded yet defendants felt that it was ok to violate the law and illegally record BROSNAN. 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 11

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 13 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

152. BROSNAN does not know what purpose the illegally recorded phone call will be used for. Defendants in this action will use the illegal recording to BROSNAN for illegal purposes. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION PERSONAL INJURY THEFT ­ P.C. § 484 DBN, WINDERS, REIFERT & CMS 153. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, and incorporates the same herein by this reference as though set forth in full. 154. WINDERS, REIFERT and CMS have taken property belonging to BROSNAN and are refusing to return said property. 155. California Penal Code § 484 states: 484. (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft 156. WINDERS, REIFERT and CMS have taken BROSNAN'S property and refused to return it in violation of California Penal Code § 484. 157. CMS directed WINDERS and REIFERT to take BROSNAN'S property. 158. WINDERS, in his statement to the Richmond Police [Exhibit 7] said that the Fast Eviction and its attorneys' and other staff told him that he could enter the PROPERTY and change the locks if he thought the PROPERTY was abandoned. WINDERS own contractor, REIFERT, called the Richmond Police because he stated that he thought he'd heard someone inside the house when he knocked on the front door when he arrived at the PROPERTY to change the locks. Based on the 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 12

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 14 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

statement of REIFERT [Exhibit 4], which REIFERT himself provided to the Richmond Police regarding hearing someone inside the house, WINDERS and REIFERT should have left the PROPERTY when no one answered the front door. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them access to the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them the right to change the locks on the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT believing that someone was in the house felt they had the right to terrorize that person by cutting the lock off a gate and illegally entering the PROPERTY, take property belonging to BROSNAN and change locks to the PROPERTY. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION PERSONAL INJURY CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THEFT BOUZANE, KRASNEY, DBN, WINDERS, REIFERT & CMS 159. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, and incorporates the same herein by this reference as though set forth in full. 160. California law defines a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a wrongful act 161. California Penal Code § 484 states: 484. (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft 162. WINDERS, REIFERT and CMS have taken BROSNAN'S property and refused to return it in violation of California Penal Code § 484. 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 13

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 15 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

163. CMS directed WINDERS and REIFERT to take BROSNAN'S property. 164. DBN, CMS, WINDERS and REIFERT took BROSNAN'S property and refuse to return said property. 165. No Court had issued an order allowing entry to the property on February 5, 2008. 166. WINDERS stated to the Richmond Police that he entered the property at the direction of the attorneys involved, those attorneys are BOUZANE and KRASNEY. 167. WINDERS, in his statement to the Richmond Police [Exhibit 7] said that the Fast Eviction and its attorneys' and other staff told him that he could enter the PROPERTY and change the locks if he thought the PROPERTY was abandoned. WINDERS own contractor, REIFERT, called the Richmond Police because he stated that he thought he'd heard someone inside the house when he knocked on the front door when he arrived at the PROPERTY to change the locks. Based on the statement of REIFERT [Exhibit 4], which REIFERT himself provided to the Richmond Police regarding hearing someone inside the house, WINDERS and REIFERT should have left the PROPERTY when no one answered the front door. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them access to the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them the right to change the locks on the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT believing that someone was in the house felt they had the right to terrorize that person by cutting the lock off a gate and illegally entering the PROPERTY, take property belonging to BROSNAN and change locks to the PROPERTY. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION PERSONAL INJURY FORCIBLE ENTRY ­ C.C.P. § 1159 DBN, CMS, WINDERS, REIFERT, CURTIS, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS & BOUZANE 168. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, and incorporates the same herein by this reference as though set forth in full. 169. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1159 states: 1159. Every person is guilty of a forcible entry who either: 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 1. By breaking open

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 16 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

doors, windows, or other parts of a house, or by any kind of violence or circumstance of terror enters upon or into any real property 170. DBN, CMS, WINDERS, REIFERT, CURTIS KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS & BOUZANE conspired to break into the PROPERTY. 171. WINDERS & REIFERT broke into the PROPERTY at the direction of DBN, CMS, CURTIS, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS & BOUZANE. 172. WINDERS & REIFERT were informed by ANDERSON that they could not enter the house without a court order. 173. WINDERS & REIFERT elected to disregard what ANDERSON told them and enter the PROPERTY anyway and change the locks. 174. WINDERS, in his statement to the Richmond Police [Exhibit 7] said that the Fast Eviction and its attorneys' and other staff told him that he could enter the PROPERTY and change the locks if he thought the PROPERTY was abandoned. WINDERS own contractor, REIFERT, called the Richmond Police because he stated that he thought he'd heard someone inside the house when he knocked on the front door when he arrived at the PROPERTY to change the locks. Based on the statement of REIFERT [Exhibit 4], which REIFERT himself provided to the Richmond Police regarding hearing someone inside the house, WINDERS and REIFERT should have left the PROPERTY when no one answered the front door. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them access to the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them the right to change the locks on the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT believing that someone was in the house felt they had the right to terrorize that person by cutting the lock off a gate and illegally entering the PROPERTY, take property belonging to BROSNAN and change locks to the PROPERTY. // // // // // // // 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 15

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 17 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION PERSONAL INJURY FORCIBLE DETAINER ­ C.C.P.§ 1160 DBN, CMS, WINDERS, REIFERT, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS CURTIS & BOUZANE 175. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, and incorporates the same herein by this reference as though set forth in full. 176. California Code of Civil Procedure section 1160 states: Every person is guilty of a forcible detainer who either: 1. By force, or by 2. menaces and threats of violence, unlawfully holds and keeps the possession of any real property, whether the same was acquired peaceably or otherwise; or, Who, in the night-time, or during the absence of the occupant of any lands, unlawfully enters upon real property, and who, after demand made for the surrender thereof, for the period of five days, refuses to surrender the same to such former occupant. The occupant of real property, within the meaning of this subdivision, is one who, within five days preceding such unlawful entry, was in the peaceable and undisturbed possession of such lands 177. DBN, CMS, CURTIS, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS & BOUZANE conspired to unlawfully enter into the PROPERTY and take property of BROSNAN. 178. DBN, CMS, CURTIS, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS & BOUZANE ordered WINDERS & REIFERT to take BROSNAN'S property and not return it to BROSNAN. 179. BROSNAN has demanded the return of his property from REIFERT, WINDERS, DBN, CMS, CURTIS, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS & BOUZANE. 180. BROSNAN demanded the return of his property on February 10, 2008. 181. REIFERT, WINDERS, DBN, CMS, CURTIS, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS & BOUZANE have refused to return BROSNAN'S property. 182. BROSNAN has not been provided a copy of any order allowing entry to the property or providing any defendant the right to take property of BROSNAN or to change the locks at the PROPERTY yet that is exactly what defendants did. 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 16

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 18 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

183. Defendants have refused to return BROSNAN to the condition he was in prior to the illegal entry of the PROPERTY. 184. WINDERS has refused to provide his insurance information to BROSNAN. 185. WINDERS, in his statement to the Richmond Police [Exhibit 7] said that the Fast Eviction and its attorneys' and other staff told him that he could enter the PROPERTY and change the locks if he thought the PROPERTY was abandoned. WINDERS own contractor, REIFERT, called the Richmond Police because he stated that he thought he'd heard someone inside the house when he knocked on the front door when he arrived at the PROPERTY to change the locks. Based on the statement of REIFERT [Exhibit 4], which REIFERT himself provided to the Richmond Police regarding hearing someone inside the house, WINDERS and REIFERT should have left the PROPERTY when no one answered the front door. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them access to the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them the right to change the locks on the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT believing that someone was in the house felt they had the right to terrorize that person by cutting the lock off a gate and illegally entering the PROPERTY, take property belonging to BROSNAN and change locks to the PROPERTY. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION PERSONAL INJURY BURGLARY ­ P.C. § 459 DBN, CMS, WINDERS, REIFERT, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS CURTIS & BOUZANE 186. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, and incorporates the same herein by this reference as though set forth in full. 187. California Penal Code section 459 states: 459. Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 17

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 19 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

vehicle, trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary. As used in this chapter, "inhabited" means currently being used for dwelling purposes, whether occupied or not. A house, trailer, vessel designed for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the occupants to leave the premises. 188. REIFERT, WINDERS, DBN, CMS, CURTIS, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS & BOUZANE conspired to commit burglary. 189. WINDERS & REIFERT carried out the burglary at the direction of REIFERT, WINDERS, DBN, CMS, CURTIS, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS & BOUZANE. 190. Said burglary was committed with the intent to deprive BROSNAN of his personal property to the detriment of BROSNAN as well as to terrorize BROSNAN. 191. WINDERS, in his statement to the Richmond Police [Exhibit 7] said that the Fast Eviction and its attorneys' and other staff told him that he could enter the PROPERTY and change the locks if he thought the PROPERTY was abandoned. WINDERS own contractor, REIFERT, called the Richmond Police because he stated that he thought he'd heard someone inside the house when he knocked on the front door when he arrived at the PROPERTY to change the locks. Based on the statement of REIFERT [Exhibit 4], which REIFERT himself provided to the Richmond Police regarding hearing someone inside the house, WINDERS and REIFERT should have left the PROPERTY when no one answered the front door. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them access to the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them the right to change the locks on the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT believing that someone was in the house felt they had the right to terrorize that person by cutting the lock off a gate and illegally entering the PROPERTY, take property belonging to BROSNAN and change locks to the PROPERTY. 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 18

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 20 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PERSONAL INJURY INVASION OF PRIVACY DBN, CMS, WINDERS, REIFERT, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS CURTIS & BOUZANE 192. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, and incorporates the same herein by this reference as though set forth in full. 193. CMS, DBN, WINDERS, REIFERT, CURTIS & BOUZANE conspired to invade the privacy of BROSNAN in order to terrorize BROSNAN out of the PROPERTY. 194. WINDERS entered the PROPERTY and went through BROSNAN'S personal belongings and photographed them. 195. WINDERS entered the PROPERTY and photographed BROSNAN'S personal property at the direction of DBN, CMS, CURTIS, KRASNEY and BOUZANE. 196. WINDERS, in his statement to the Richmond Police [Exhibit 7] said that the Fast Eviction and its attorneys' and other staff told him that he could enter the PROPERTY and change the locks if he thought the PROPERTY was abandoned. WINDERS own contractor, REIFERT, called the Richmond Police because he stated that he thought he'd heard someone inside the house when he knocked on the front door when he arrived at the PROPERTY to change the locks. Based on the statement of REIFERT [Exhibit 4], which REIFERT himself provided to the Richmond Police regarding hearing someone inside the house, WINDERS and REIFERT should have left the PROPERTY when no one answered the front door. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them access to the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them the right to change the locks on the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT believing that someone was in the house felt they had the right to terrorize that person by cutting the lock off a gate and illegally entering the PROPERTY, take property belonging to BROSNAN and change locks to the PROPERTY. // // // // 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 19

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 21 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31 // // // // //

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION PERSONAL INJURY WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE DBN, CMS, CURTIS, PRIORITY, APRICIA 197. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, and incorporates the same herein by this reference as though set forth in full. 198. DBN, CMS, PRIORITY, APRICIA & PRIORITY knew that the sale of the PROPERTY should not have happened yet still conducted the sale. 199. CMS knew that BROSNAN'S loan would be lost if the sale was conducted. 200. BROSNAN lost his loan as a result of the sale of the PROPERTY. 201. DBN, CMS, PRIORITY, APRICIA & PRIORITY conducted the sale of the PROPERTY in order to deprive BROSNAN of the PROPERTY. 202. A direct result of the wrongful foreclosure of the PROPERTY is that the loan BROSNAN had secured to purchase the property was lost. 203. CMS knew that violating the AGREEMENT would cause the PROPERTY to be sold and that BROSNAN would lose the loan he's arranged. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT DBN, CMS 204. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, and incorporates the same herein by this reference as though set forth in full. 205. CMS and DBN violated the AGREEMENT which required CMS to postpone the sale of the PROPERTY.

1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 20

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 22 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERTY DAMAGE CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY PRIVATE PROPERTY DBN, CMS, WINDERS, REIFERT, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS CURTIS & BOUZANE 206. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, and incorporates the same herein by this reference as though set forth in full. 207. DBN, CMS, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS, WINDERS, REIFERT, CURTIS & BOUZANE conspired to destroy BROSNAN'S personal property when they chose to cut the lock off BROSNAN'S gate. 208. WINDERS & REIFERT cut the lock on BROSNAN'S gate at the direction of CMS, CURTIS & BOUZANE. 209. CMS, WINDERS, REIFERT, CURTIS & BOUZANE conspired to refuse to replace BROSNAN'S gate lock. 210. WINDERS, in his statement to the Richmond Police [Exhibit 7] said that the Fast Eviction and its attorneys' and other staff told him that he could enter the PROPERTY and change the locks if he thought the PROPERTY was abandoned. WINDERS own contractor, REIFERT, called the Richmond Police because he stated that he thought he'd heard someone inside the house when he knocked on the front door when he arrived at the PROPERTY to change the locks. Based on the statement of REIFERT [Exhibit 4], which REIFERT himself provided to the Richmond Police regarding hearing someone inside the house, WINDERS and REIFERT should have left the PROPERTY when no one answered the front door. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them access to the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them the right to change the locks on the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT believing that someone was in the house felt they had the right to terrorize that person by cutting the lock off a gate and illegally entering the PROPERTY, take property belonging to BROSNAN and change locks to the PROPERTY. // // // 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 21

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 23 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PERSONAL INJURY ILLEGAL TERMINATION OF OCCUPANCY ALL DEFENDANTS 211. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, and incorporates the same herein by this reference as though set forth in full 212. California Civil Code § 789.3 states: 789.3. (a) A landlord shall not with intent to terminate the occupancy under any lease or other tenancy or estate at will, however created, of property used by a tenant as his residence willfully cause, directly or indirectly, the interruption or termination of any utility service furnished the tenant, including, but not limited to, water, heat, light, electricity, gas, telephone, elevator, or refrigeration, whether or not the utility service is under the control of the landlord. (b) In addition, a landlord shall not, with intent to terminate the occupancy under any lease or other tenancy or estate at will, however created, of property used by a tenant as his or her residence, willfully: (1) Prevent the tenant from gaining reasonable access to the property by changing the locks or using a bootlock or by any other similar method or device; (2) Remove outside doors or windows; or (3) Remove from the premises the tenant's personal property, the furnishings, or any other items without the prior written consent of the tenant, except when done pursuant to the procedure set forth in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1980) of Title 5 of Part 4 of Division 3. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prevent the lawful eviction of a tenant by appropriate legal authorities, nor shall anything in this subdivision apply to occupancies defined by subdivision (b) of Section 1940. (c) Any landlord who violates this section shall be liable to the tenant in a civil action for all of the following: (1) Actual damages of the tenant. 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 22

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 24 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

(2) An amount not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) for each day or part thereof the landlord remains in violation of this section. In determining the amount of such award, the court shall consider proof of such matters as justice may require; however, in no event shall less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) be awarded for each separate cause of action. Subsequent or repeated violations, which are not committed contemporaneously with the initial violation, shall be treated as separate causes of action and shall be subject to a separate award of damages. (d) In any action under subdivision (c) the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party. In any such action the tenant may seek appropriate injunctive relief to prevent continuing or further violation of the provisions of this section during the pendency of the action. The remedy provided by this section is not exclusive and shall not preclude the tenant from pursuing any other remedy which the tenant may have under any other provision of law. 213. All defendants acted in concert to lie to the Richmond Police Department and it's officers in order to illegally gain access to the PROPERTY and the HOUSE. 214. Defendants illegally entered the HOUSE and changed locks to the HOUSE. 215. Defendants admit to illegally changing locks on the HOUSE. 216. Defendants have taken BROSNAN'S personal property. 217. Defendants refuse to return BROSNAN'S personal property. 218. BROSNAN has been injured by Defendant illegal activity. 219. WINDERS, in his statement to the Richmond Police [Exhibit 7] said that the Fast Eviction and its attorneys' and other staff told him that he could enter the PROPERTY and change the locks if he thought the PROPERTY was abandoned. WINDERS own contractor, REIFERT, called the Richmond Police because he stated that he thought he'd heard someone inside the house when he knocked on the front door when he arrived at the PROPERTY to change the locks. Based on the statement of REIFERT [Exhibit 4], which REIFERT himself provided to the Richmond Police regarding hearing someone inside the house, WINDERS and REIFERT should have left the PROPERTY when no one answered the front door. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them access to the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have a Court Order giving them the right to change the locks on the PROPERTY. WINDERS and REIFERT believing that someone was in the house felt they had the right to terrorize that person by cutting the lock off a 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 23

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 25 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

gate and illegally entering the PROPERTY, take property belonging to BROSNAN and change locks to the PROPERTY. TWELVTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE DBN, CMS, WINDERS, REIFERT, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS, PRIORITY, CURTIS & BOUZANE 220. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, and incorporates the same herein by this reference as though set forth in full. 221. DBN, CMS, WINDERS, PRIORITY, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS, REIFERT, CURTIS & BOUZANE undertook their actions intentionally and not by mistake. 222. Reasonable care and prudence would have prevented the injuries suffered by BROSNAN. 223. In negligent disregard of BROSNAN'S rights all defendants negligently caused BROSNAN to suffer injuries. 224. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have any legal right to cut the lock off the gate and enter the PROPERTY, yet they did so. 225. WINDERS and REIFERT did not have any legal right to change the locks on the PROPERTY, yet they did so. 226. DBN, CMS, KRASNEY, BOUZANE and CURTIS negligently directed WINDERS to illegally enter the property. Said direction was with the total disregard of the rights of BROSNAN. 227. Defendants can't claim an inadvertent error because Officer Anderson informed them that they could not enter the property without a court order, yet they did so anyway. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ILLEGAL CONVERSION DBN, CMS, WINDERS, REIFERT, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS, CURTIS & BOUZANE 228. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, and incorporates the same herein by this reference as though set forth in full. 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 24

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 26 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

229. DBN, CMS, WINDERS, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS, CURTIS & BOUZANE undertook their actions intentionally and not by mistake. 230. WINDERS took personal property belonging to BROSNAN and has refused to return said personal property. 231. WINDERS took the personal property at the direction of DBN, CMS, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS, CURTIS and BOUZANE. 232. WINDERS, DBN, CMS, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS, CURTIS and BOUZANE did not have a court order allowing them to take personal property of BROSNAN. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PERSONAL INJURY TRESSPASS DBN, CMS, WINDERS, REIFERT, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS, CURTIS & BOUZANE 233. Plaintiff refers to the allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this complaint, and incorporates the same herein by this reference as though set forth in full. 234. DBN, CMS, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS, CURTIS & BOUZANE DIRECTED WINDERS to illegally enter the PROPERTY. 235. WINDERS illegally entered the property. 236. DBN, CMS, KRASNEY, EXPRESS EVICTIONS, CURTIS & BOUZANE or WINDERS had any legal right to trespass upon the PROPERTY. 237. Defendants did not have a Court Order allowing entry to the PROPERTY. 238. In brazen disregard for the law REIFERT cut the lock off a gate to the PROPERTY. 239. In brazen disregard for the law WINDERS entered the PROPERTY and changed locks. 240. WINDERS and REIFERT can't contend they were not told to not enter the PROPERTY without a court order because ANDERSON told them they needed a court order to enter the PROPERTY. 241. WINDERS, holds a California Real Estate Broker's License. In the course of obtaining said license WINDERS studied various course material regarding real estate. Part of what he was taught was that he needs either valid permission or a court order to enter a PROPERTY. 1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 25

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 27 of 66

1 2 3 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 29 30 31

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against all the defendants and each of them as follows: 1. For actual monetary damages according to proof; 2. For general monetary damages according to proof; 3. For compensatory damages according to proof; 4. For negligence damages according to proof; 5. For actual personal injury damages according to proof; 6. For property damages according to proof; 7. For Punitive Damages against each defendant in the amount of $10,000,000.00; 8. For an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs according to proof; 9. For an injunction to stop the illegal activities of defendants; 10. For costs of suit; and 11. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. DATED: September 3, 2008 ___/S/______________ John Brosnan VERIFICATION John Brosnan says: I am the plaintiff in this matter and make this verification; I have read the foregoing complaint, know the contents thereof, and from information and belief believe the same to be true. I verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: September 3, 2008 ___/S/______________ John Brosnan

1st AMENDED COMPLAINT 26

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 28 of 66

EXHIBIT 1
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 29 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 30 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 31 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 32 of 66

EXHIBIT 2
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 33 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 34 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 35 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 36 of 66

EXHIBIT 3
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 37 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 38 of 66

EXHIBIT 4
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 39 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 40 of 66

EXHIBIT 5
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 41 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 42 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 43 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 44 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 45 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 46 of 66

EXHIBIT 6
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 47 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 48 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 49 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 50 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 51 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 52 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 53 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 54 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 55 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 56 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 57 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 58 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 59 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 60 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 61 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 62 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 63 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 64 of 66

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 65 of 66

EXHIBIT 7
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Case 3:08-cv-04049-MEJ

Document 4

Filed 09/04/2008

Page 66 of 66