Free Motion for Discovery - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW

Document 97

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 1 of 10

lr. Pro Joseph Kraveco (Adnitted Hac Vice) N. SPECTEREVANS SPECTER 2 &MANOGIJE,P.C, Building The26ftFloorKoppers I 52 Pennsylvania 19 3 Pittsburgh, Tel: (412)$!2-2399 + Fax: (412)642-2309 [email protected] I MichaelD. Braun(167416\ P.C. 6 BRAUNI,AW GROUP, 12304 Santa MonicaBlvd-"Suite109 I,osAngeles, 90025 CA Tel: QL0)442-7755 8 Fax: Q10)442-7756 service@braunlawgroup,com E-mail:
9 1 0 J. MarkMoore(18M73)

(67641) ha Spiro

1 1 11377 West Oly4ic Blvd.,FiffhFloor

MOSS BARNESS, SPIRO LLP

t2

LosAngeles, 90064-1683 CA Fax: QIq85-2456

13 E-mail:[email protected]
Axorneys Plaintifs for L6 I7 l8

[email protected]

Janet LindnerSpielbag(?21926) LAWOFFICES OFJANET LINDNERSPIEIBERG 12400 WilshircBlvd.,Suite400 I,osAngeles, 90025 CA Tel: (310) 392-8801 Fa;<: (310) 278-5938 E-mail [email protected]

UNTTED STATES DISTRICf, COIJRT NORTHF'.RNDISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAI\JOSE DTVISION

t 9 SCHOLL,on bebalf of themselves all and 20 21 22 23 Washingtoncorporation;WASHINGTON
at

FELTONA. SPEARS" and SIDNEY JR otherssimilady situatd Plaintilfs. v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC., A

CASE NO.: 5:0&CV-ffi868 (RMW) CLASSACTION NOTICE OI' MOTION; MOTION AI\D SUPPORTING MEMORAI\IDLM FOR JI'RISDICTIONAL DISCOYERY

t<

MUTUALBANI! FA(alkla WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK); FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEII, a Delaware corporation;andLENDER'S SERVICE, INC..

Date: Time: Place:

August 15,2008 9:00 am. Cour&oom 4thFloor 6, 280Southlst Steet San Jose, 95113 CA

26 27 28

HonorableRonaldM, Itrhyt,

De&ndants.

OF AxD SItFpORnNOIIEIIOI{A|IDUU FORJIII{SOICTOIIAL DE@vERi NOTICE UOIToN;UOTION (RMW) CASE No.: Eil81/{0@

Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW

Document 97

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 2 of 10

I
,

NOTICE OT MOTTONAIID MOTION TO ALL IIITERESTED PARTIESAltD IEEIR COUNSELOF RECORD: PLEASETAKE NOTICE TEAT odAugust15,2008, 9:00ar&, or ansoon at thereafter as maybehesrd Courtroom 4thFloor,ofthe above-entitled thematler in 6, Court,located 280Sorlh at lst Streert, Jose, 95113, San CA before Honorable the Ronald Whyte, M. PlaintiffsFelton.d Spears,

3 4

6 7 8 9

Scholl move Courtfor theentryof anOnlerto allowjurisdictional Jr.andSidney will the to discovery betaken regarding Plainti&' standing pursue actioo to an MefiIant I.SIAppraisal, (fl\la LLC against Leirder's Seavioe, Inc.X'LSD. Plaintiffeseet in thealtemative &is Court'sdeirying to LSI's Motionto Dsnaiss Plaintifs'

10 FiretAmetrded Complaint laokofArtioleItr sbndingtotake for discoveryrelatedLSI'sparticipation to

1 t addrole,if aoy,in Plaintift' appraisals thealleged and conspiracy codefendants with Washington L2 MutualBank,FA andFirstAmericqn eAppraiselT whicharesubjeot theabove+aptioned io action l3 ThisMotionis supported theAffdavit ofJoseph Kravec, in Support by N. Jr. ofPlaintiffs'Motionfor

L4 Jurisdictional Discovery, documents in thisaction, relwautfederal the filed and law. 15 L6 t7 l8 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
I
IloIC OFUOIIoX;bIU{ AXDgJPFOnrngUEIORAI{rrl'l| FOR.Ju'|FD!qIr!]|AL ln8c{mFr CISE NO: &C.Clr{&el8 (RtrW)

Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW

Document 97

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 3 of 10

I

BRIEF AND POINTS OF AUTIIORITY counsel, respectfirllysubmitthis Briefand PointsofAuthority Plaintiffs, by their rmdersigned in supponof their Motion for JurisdictionalDiscoveryin the alte,r:rative this Court's outight dniat to

2
A

of Defendantlrnder's Services,hc.'g n/k/a LSI Appraisal,Lrc CT,Sfl Motion to Dismiss: and Memorandnm Supportof Motion to Dismfss(Motion to Dismiss') fi1edonMay 2,2008. in

6

INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs havebroughtthis putativeclassactionagainst Defsndaots LSI, \lashington Mutual

8 9

('EA ) forthenroles in thecorspiracytoinflale Bank,FA C'\ilaMu'), andFirst AmericaneAppraiselT home mortgageappraisalvalues acrossthe United States, To supporttheir claim that Defendants

1 0 e,r:tered an illegal conspiracy,Plaintifs haveprovided evide,nce into from the New York Attomey 1 1 Geneml'sconrplaintagainstFirst AmericaneAppraiselTindicating eachof the tlree coconspimtors t2 s/ers willing participantsin the schemq and the appraisalreport for Plaintif SiclaeyScholl which identifiesall threeDefendants, includingLSI, asprties to theappraisal,This evidence showsPlaintitrs L4 haveproperArticle Itr jurisdiction over eachDefendanL 15 l6 Even thougb no discoveryhas beenbken to detemine eachDefendants'role in preparing reviewing and publishingPlaintitrs' appraisais eachDefendants'role in the allegedconspiracy, and

t 7 LSI seeksto have Plaintiffs' action againstit dismissedrmder the premisethal it played no role
l 8 whatsoeverinPlaintitrs'appraisals. LSI's Motion to Dismiss,Memrorandum PointsofAuthorities and t9 ('LSI's Brief), pp. 6-8. The only supporting"evidence"it hasproducedto supportthis bhmderbuss 20 claim is the affidavit ofits ExecutiveVice President ofAppraisal Operations who fails to denythatLSI 2l
received reviewed,or changed Plaintift' appraisals. Affidavit of Katlleen IW Rice In Support[sic]

22 Motion to Dimiss AmendedConrplaint('Rice Aff.), ulJ6, 10, L2,l+1,5. However,asno discovery 23 hasbeentakenin this action,andthereis conflicting evidence regardingwhetherISI playeda role in
rhis 24 Plaintitrs'appraisals, genuine a dispute regardingjurisdiction exists.Therefore, Courtshouldallow

25 Plaintiffs to takediscoveryto determine whetherArticle Itr jurisdiction odsts prior to dismissing their 26 actionbased LSI's assertion Plaintiffs lack standing.Wells on thet Fargo &Co.v. Well*Fargo Express 27 Co., 556 F.2d,446(Nh Cir.Lg7 ). 7 28
z
NqNCEOF UONONiT&ITON ANDSJPPORIINGEEIIOFANTN,Iu FORJTIRED|cNOIIALDTSCOVERY (RMW) CASE NO.: 5:086r.00S0

Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW

Document 97

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 4 of 10

1 2

FACTUAL BACKGROTJNI) On March 28, 2008, Plaintitrs filed freir First AmendedComplaint in this action allegng Defendants LSI, WaIvIn, and EA conspiredtogetherto raise the value of WaMu's mortgageloan portfolio throughLSI andEA providingfalsffiedappraisal reportswhich inflatethevalueofborowen'

5 6

pmperties. First AmendedComplaing![ 6. Plaintitrs allegethe actionsof the conspiracy,and each Defe,ndant byvirtue oftheir participaiiontherein,haveharmed both Plaintitrs anda classof all persons who borrowedmoneyfrom WaMu while the conspiracy was in operation- Id, ffii 7, 56, Plaintitrs as allegetheywheredamaged theresultofthe conspiracybyvirtue ofpaying for counterfeitappraisals,

I 10

Id, ffi 7, 56,82,98, r04, 109-1 r23, L26-127. r0, On May 2, 2008,LSI filed its Motion to DismissPlaintiffs' Firstr Ame,nded Complain! in part

1 1 based Rule 12(b)(1),ailegingPlaindffs lack standing pursueanactionagainst on to tlem- LSI's Briel

t2 pp. 6-8, To supportits MotioD,I.Sfs counselargues that'T,SI playedno role whatsoever the real in 13 estatetansactions af issue in this actiorU-and '1bat LSI had absolutelyno involve,mentwitl or
1 4 connectionto the appraisals issuein this suif" LSI's Brief, pp, 4 8. To support its corrnsel's at 1 5 contentions, submittedthe Affdavit ofMs. Kaflleen M. Rice LSI's ExecutiveVice President LSI of t 6 AppraisalOperations forLSL Rice Aff., { 1. t7
Ms. Rice affests that shehad a search oonducted ISI's databases any andall appraisal in "for

1 8 reportsrelafingto fPlaintiftl andtheproperties areat issuein the Ame,nded that Complaint" but does 1.9 not stateif anyappraisal reportsfor Plaintift or their properties werediscovered.Rice Aff., tf 3. Ms.
zv

Rice doesattestrhat I,SI 'tad not prepared any appraisalreport'' for the propertiesownedby Mr.

2L Spears orMs. Scholt andthat'T.SIwasnot ableto find anyappraisal reportcompletedby LSI' forMs. 22 Scholl's property, Rice Af., ffi 6, rc, D,l+15 (emphasis added).Ms. Rice doesnot attestwhether 23 ISI received, reviewd or otherwiseaffectedeithrPlaintitrs' appraisals.

u

On Jrme25, 2008,Plaintifs submittedPtaintiffSidney Scholl's appraisal report Afralavit of

25 Joseph Kravec, Jr. in Suppodof Plaintitrs' Responses Oppositionto Defendmts' Motions to N. in 26 Dimiss, Exhibit 2 ('Scholl Report). This report was attached Plaintifs' orieinal ClassAction to 27 Complaintinthis lawsuit andis referenced spesificaflyin Plaintiffs' First AmendedComplaint,![59, 28 The Scholl Reportidentifies1,SIasthe appraiser's "CLIENT" for Plaintiffscholl's appraisal.Scholl
3
NOTICE lrOTlONi UOTI]N A]lD St PFOtIlilO [EllORAl,lDl,U FORJIIRISDIGIOIA DISCOITERY OF (RMW) CASE NO.: 8i084V{08@

Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW

Document 97

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 5 of 10

I
z

identified as the appraiser's Report,p, 6; seealso KravecAff., !f 5 (verifying tbat the email address client's address belongsto LSI). Ms. Rice acknowledges rwiewed the Scholl Report notesthat she was on that EAhasno corpoaie "the appraisal completed behalfofeAppraiselT,"andattests Defendant

A

relationshipto ISI or its parentcompany.Rice Aff., ![ 8. Ms. Rice fails to aclnowledgeor denythaf I5I receivedMs. Scholl's appraisator to explain

5

6 why LSI receivedit ifLSI clidnot prepareor complete report. Additionally, neitherMs. Rice nor the
haveprovidedanyspecificevidence 7 ISI's counsel supporting LSI's counsel'sclaimsrhet'T-SIplayed

8 no role whatsoever the real estate in tansactionsat issuein this action" or *fhal I,SI hadabsolutely no 9 involvementwith or connectionto the appraisalsal issuein this suit." LSI's Brieq pp. 4, 8. Instead, 1 0 Plaintiffs haveprovidedconflicting evidenceo the form of?laintiffScholl's appraisal in repor! which 1 1 suggests did havea role or someinvolvementwith Plaintiffs appraisal. Scholl Repor! p. 6. LSI 12
I.'

ARGI]MENT Article Itr standing is required to establisha justiciable caseor controvrE/within the plaintitrs bearthe burdenofshowing they 1256(9th Cir. 2008). 'To satis$ constitutionalstanding,

t4 jurisdiction ofthe federalcourts. Gerlingerv, AmazoncomInc., Borders Group,Inc.,526F.3d 1253, l5

(1) t 6 meettbre requirments: they suffredan qjury in fut; Q) the injury is fairly traceableto the

1.7 challenged actionof deferdmq and(3) it is 'likely,' asopposed 'speculative,'thaX injurywill be to the 1 8 redressed a favorabledecision" Tyler v, Cuomo,236 F.3d.1L24, ll3l-32 (9th Cir. 2000),citing by 1.9 Lujan v. Defmders of Wildlife,s04 U.S. 555, 560-61(1992). 'Tn a classaction,staadingis satisfied 2A if al leastonenamedplaintiffmeets therequireme,nts Batesv. UnitedParcel Service, ." Inc., 511F.3d 21, 974,985(9th Cir. 2007),cit'mgArmstrongv. Davis,275F.3d849,860(9th Cir.200l).
zz )a )a

As explainedmore fully in Plaintitrs' Brief in OppositionLSI's Motion to Dismiss,Plaintiffs haveproperly allegedthey were damaged directly from LSI's willing participationin the conspiracy with WaMu and EA to provide unlawfirl, incredible appraisalsto Plaintiffs. Jee Plaintiffs'

25 Mernorandum Oppositionto LSI's Motion to Dismiss,SectionLB. This conspiracy evide,ncedby in is 26 the allegationsin Plaindffs complaintwhich quotesemailsfrom the New York Attomey Genera.l's 27 complaint showing specific evide' of LSI's participation in the conspiracy. First Amended rce 28 Complain! !f![43, 53. The conspiracy finther evide,nced is byPlaintitrScholl's appraisal reportwhich
4
CASE 5:@Or{0488RMwl NO..
NOTtrEOF !6IION| M'TION ATD ST,PPORITNO MEI{ORAIIIDIJU JI,RISI]ISTIOIIA! OECOVERI FOR

Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW

Document 97

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 6 of 10

I 2

as identifies eachof the tbree Defe,ndants "clients" for the sameappraisal. Scholl Report p. 6. clisnt on the Schol R.port, Jurisdictionis thereforeproperagainstLSI asit is listed asthe appraiser's in andfor its role as a co-conspiralor the allegedscheme,Applied Equipnent Corporationv. Littan

4

(Cal.1994)(mderCalifomialaq 510-511 liabilityisimposed"on SaudiArabiaLinited,869P.2d454 penonswho, althoughnot actuallycommittinga tort themselves, sbare with the immsdiatetortfeasors

6 7 8 9

a commonplm or desiguin its perpetration'). prior to anyformal discovery EventhoughPlaintiffs' a[egationq theLaw, thefactsadduced and tbat beingtakenall supportffnding pfufufiffs havestandingover LSI, LSI's counselargues Plaintiffs

carnot traceanyinjuri* theyallegedlysufferedto ISI's conduct.LSls Brie! pp. 2, 7. LSI's cormsel 'T-SIplayedno role wbatsowerin the real estate 10 asserts transactions issuein tlis action' and'1hat at 1l LSI had absolutelyno involvernentwith or connectionto the appraisals issuein this suit." LSI's at

pesr:mablyrelieson the testimonyof LSI's ExecutiveVice President 1,2 Brief, pp.4, 8. LSI's counsel of 1 3 Appraisal Operations. SeeRice Atr, T 3. LSls subrmission Ms. Rice's Affidavit is a factual of

t4 challengeto jurisdiction, and Plaintitrs should be permitted discovery to refute ISI's thus-far
1 5 unsupported contentioas. SafeAirfor Everyonev. See Meyer,373F3d 1035,1039(9th Cir.2004). l6
pertinentfactsbearingon thequmtionofjurisdiction arein dispute, In theNinth Circuit, '\arhere

L7 discoveryshouldbe allowed-" Am. W.Airlines, Inc, v, GPA Group, Ltd,877 F.zd 793, 801 (9th 1 8 Ctt.l989){citingWells Faryo & Co.,556F.2d406,430-31, n.24 (9thCn.D77)). Itis reversible error 1 9 when a distict court reftses to grantjurisdictional discoveryunless'it is clearthat firrther discovery
would not denronstatefactssuffisient to constitutea basisfor jurisdiction." WellsFngo & Co., 556

2L F.2dat43L3l,n- 24. For a district courtwithin theNinth Circuit to dismissaplaintiffs claim forlack
of Article Itr standingon a factual challengq the defendant must produce"conclusiveevidence"to

23 justify denialofjurisdictioaaldiscavery. Farr v. U.5.,990F.2d451,454 (gth Cir.1993).
z+

Here, LSI fiils to pmduce any evidencesupportingits connsel's statement'1taf LSI had

25 absolutelyno involvementwith or connection the appraisals issuein this $it." ISI's Brief, p.8. to at 26 The only specificwidence in this caseso far is Plaintiffs' appraisal reports,oneofwhich specifically 27 identifies LSI as a'olient'' and as having received the appraisal. Scholl Report p. 6. The only 28 'evidence" LSI has prese,nted the Court is is affiant's statemxent to which only statesLSI did not
5
NOICE OF MOnON;UOnONAtlD St PPORTII{G trEllORAl{DUu FORJURIS'DICTIoIIAI. OI}COVEIIY (RMW} CdSE NO.: 5.084V{n8

Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW

Document 97

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 7 of 10

I

to or'tomplete" appraisals forPlaintitrs.1d.,6,10,I2,L+1.5. LSI ofers no evidence deny furepare-

or reportsin someway, or that 2 tlat it receive4 reviewd ch.mged, affestdeitherPlaintitrs appraisal scheme allegedin Plaintiffs' Fint AmendedComplaintartl'![6-9, 35as it participafed the appraisal in
4

39, 4243,53-54,56. facts Where,as here, it is certainlynot clear that flrrther discoverywould not de,monstrate

6

if sufficie,ntto constitutea basisfor jurisdictiod' discoverymust be allowedto determine Plaintiffs statements havestanding. WellsFargo & Co.,556F.2d af $A-31,n 24. LSI's counsel'sconclusory *fhaf LSI had absohdely involvementwith or connectionto the appraisals issuein this suit" no at msupportedby anyevidencqincluding LSI's ovn afFant is clearlynot fhe"conclusive evide,rrce" the

R

9

prior to discovery for onjurisdictionalgrounds 10 Ninth Circuit requires Plaintiffs' actionto be dismissed il beingtaken. Fan, 660F.2d,at 454. CONCLUSION For theforegoingreasons, Plaintiffs respectfullyrequest ifthe Courtdoesnot disniss LSfs that

t2 13

t4 Motion to Dismiss basedon Rule 12(b)(1) ouhighq that Plaintitrs be allowed to tale discovery 1 5 regardingjwisdictional issues,Accordingly,Plaintiffs bavesubmitteda list oftopics for discoveryto
IO

IfI's role in the allegedconspiracy what role LSI hadin Plaintiffs' appraisals.Kravec determine and

1,7 Aff.,ti9. l 8 Dated:June25,2008 t9 20 21. 22
)?

SPECTER SPECTER EYAITS& MANOGUE,P.C. By VJoseoh Krzvec. N. Jr. Joseph Kravec, N. Jr.

24 25 26 27 28
6

The26t FloorKoppers Building Pittsburgb, Pe,rnsylvania l9 152 TeL (412)642-2300 Fax: (412)642-8A9 E-nail [email protected] MchaelD. Brau::, Esquire BRATJNLAWGROUP,P.C. 12304 SantaMonicaBlvd., 109 Suite Ios Angeles, 90025 CA Tel: (310)442-775s Fax: (310)42-7756 E-mail:[email protected]

M'T}CE OF lbIONI UOTIOI ANDST,FPORTO UEIIORANDUU FORJUREDICNOMT NCOVEtr CASE NO.: s:@.CVO@@ (RM\ry}

Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW

Document 97

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 8 of 10

I

2
J

(676a1) ka Spiro J.MarkMoore(180473)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 13 1.4 15 1,6 t7 l8 19 20 21 22
z)

11377 WestOfmpic Blvtl, Fifth Floor Los Angeles, 90064-1683 CA Tel: (310)235-2468 Fax: QI0)235-2456 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] JanetLinclnerSpielbag Q21926) LAW OITICES OF JAIIET LINDNER SPIELBERG 12400Wilshire Blvd., Suite400 Ios Angeles,CA 90025 Tel: (310)3928801 Fax: (310)278-5938 E-mail jlspielberg@jls$.com Attomeysfor Plalndffs

sPrRoMoss BARrtEss, LLP

24 25 26 27 28
-l

t{oTtcE t[ono$ MonoI al|D auPPoRT0lc EuoRA$nru FoRJURI]DIGTpML oF t DtscotEtry CASENO.:5:08CV{888 (RIrVo

Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW

Document 97

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 9 of 10

I

PROOFOF SERVICE

2 STATEOFPENNSYLVANIA

) ) ss.: COLTNTYOFALLEGHENY ) State I am 4 I amemolovedinthe CountvofAlleehenv. ofPennsvlvania. oyerthe is to adrhess The26t Floor aeeof 18andhofa Dartv thewithinaction.Mv business I 52 ) lsilrting, Pitts6urg\Pennsylvania 19. Koppers
6 8 9

Case On June25.2008.usinethe NorthernDistrict of Califomia'sElectronic with N. Jr., Filine Systern, theECFID registered Joseph Kravec, I filed andserved to described as: thed6criment(s) NOTICE OF MOTION: MOTIONAND SIIPPORTING MEMORANIDT]M I'OR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOYERY

The ECF Systemis desiprred automaticallvEenerate e-mail messase all to automaucallvEenerarc e-lna [o an t0 to 1 0 nartiesin thecase.-which i consftutesservice.AccorAiie to theECF/PACERsvsTenr consfltutes sgrvice. servicr Accordiig sysTern, for as ihis case, partiesareserved follows: the l1 T2 L4 15 t6

LindnerSpielberg, Esquire Janet Ira Spiro,Esquire Robertha Spiro,Esquire J. Mark Moore,Esquire MichaelD. Braun,Esquire

j lsprelberg@jlslp. com

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] service @braunlawgroup.com [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] j [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

t7 18
L9 2A 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Attorneysfor Plainffis Robert Pfister,Esquire J. MartinL. Fineman, Esquire Stephen MicbaelRunrnage, Esquire SamN.Dawood, Esquire Jonathan Lloyd, Esquire M.
LauraJeanFowler, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant eAppraiselT MargaretAme Keane,Esquire Kris Hue ChauMan, Esquire Angela M. Papalaskaris, Esquire ChristopherJ. Clark" Esquire

Attorneys for Defendant Washlngton Mutual, Inc.

Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW

Document 97

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 10 of 10

I 2
J

Kevin C. Wallace, Esquire Esquire JeffreyD.Roteirberg, Esquire RichardF.Hans,

[email protected] [email protected] rhans@@w.com

4 Attorneyrs Defendant for LSI Appraisat,LLC
)

OnJune25,2008,I served documen(s) the described as: NOTICE OFMOTION; MOTION AND SUPPORTNG DISCOYERY MEMORANDI]M T'ORJTJRISDICTIONAL thereofenclosed a sealed in envelope(s) addressed as ly.placing a true copy(ies)
Iollows:

6 8

9 Kergi_Ford Esquire Cunningh4n1 Padck J. Smith-Es-quire 10 Thacher FrofEt& WoodLLP 11 NewYortNewYork 10281
Two World FinancialCenter

t2 Attorneys for eAppraisefl
Kris H. Man. Esquire DewevandteBo^eufLLP T4 OneEmbarcadero Center Suite400 l5 SanFrancisco, 94l L| -3619 CA
IJ

l6 Attorneys for LSI Appraisal, LLC
11 LI

I servedthe abovedocument(s) follows: as

BY MAIL. I am familiarwith the firm's Dractice collecfionandprocessine of pondence mailine. corresoondence mailins. Underthatpractice wouldbe deposited by bv ft with U.S.oostaf L9 servicbon that sarire v[th postage i onthat sarfie v[t postase day davv[rh ttrereonfirllyprepaid at PittsbqggtL thereonfirllv oreDaid Pennsylvania -on -servedin the ordinary courseof buSinessl I am aware-that-on ordinarv course-ofbusiness. arn awarethat aware-that^on motion of the partv mo mofion ihe oartv rr 20 serviceis pres[medinvalid ifpostal cancellation rimed dateor posta meterdatbis rhorethari orpostase onedav after dateof deoositfor mailine in an affidavitl day deposit mailing ffidavit.

l8

who is admiftedprohacyl'ce this in . I am.emplgyed tbeoffice of anattomey tn 22 acuon wnose at cuecnon sernce made. tne was 23 24 25 26 27 28
a00ve ls tnre ano colrect.

2l

,

I declare underpenaltyof perjuryundertle lawsof theUnited States the that Executed June25,2008,at Pittsburgft, on Pennsylvania.

Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW

Document 97-2

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 1 of 2

Pro Joseph Kravec, (Admitted Hac Vice) N. Jr. SPECTER SPECTEREVANS a &MANOGUE,P.C. Building The26' FloorKoppers J PennsylvaniL52L9 a Pittsburgb, Tel: (412)642-2300 4 Fa:r: (4L2)642-2309 E-mail jnk(A,sselneepq
I
l

MchaelD. Bram(L674L6) BRAUNLAW GROUP, P.C. 12304 SantaMonicaBlvd", 109 Suite 7 LosAngelos, 90025 CA Tel (310)42-77s5 8 Fax: (310) M2-7756 Fmail: [email protected]
6 9 10 J.MmkMoore(184473) 1l

(67641) ha Spiro

MOSS BARNESS, SPIRO LLP 11377 WestOl1m.pic Blvd-,Fiih Floor ks A:rgeles, 90064-1683 CA 1.2 Tel: (310)235-2468 Fax: G1,q85-2456 IJ E-mail:[email protected] [email protected]
L4

I g Janet indner Spielber Q21926) LAWOFFICES OFJANET LINDNERSPIEIBERG 12400 WilshireBlvd",Suite400 LosAngeles, 90025 CA Tel: (310) 392-8801 Fax: (310) 278-5938 E--, il :[email protected]!s.

Attorneys Plaintifs for
l6 t7 18 FELTON A. SPEARS, and SIDNEY JR L9 SCHOLL, on behalfofthennselves all and otiers similarly situald 20 Plaintiffs" 2l v. 22 WASHINGTON MUTUAI-, INC., A t7, Washingtoncorporation;WASHINGTON MUTUALBANI! FA@lkla 24 1VASHINGTONMUTUAL BANK); FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT,a Delaware 25 corporatioq andLENDER'S SERVICE, INC., UNTTED STATES I}ISTRICT COTJRT NORTEERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAII JOSE DTVISION

(RMW) CASENO.: 5:0&CV-00868 CLASSACfiON

IPROPOSEDI ORDER GRANTING PLAINTItr'f,'S' MOTION F'OR JI,]RISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

26 27 28

Defendants.

ORDER GRA$TIT{S PIA{TFFA UONOI FORJURIBDICNONADIIBOIERY TPROP(EEOI

CASE &(a.CVdE88(Rlrtu NO.:

Case 5:08-cv-00868-RMW

Document 97-2

Filed 06/25/2008

Page 2 of 2

1

2

ORDER IPROPOSEDI ANDNOW,this_dayof

2008, upon consideration

A. and Scholls'Motionfor Jurisdictional Dscovery, 3 ofPlaintifs Felton Spears' Sidney it 4 and the arguments the partieswith respectthereton is herebyORDERED, of
6
.,

that GRANTED.Plaintiffsshall and ADJLIDGED DECREED saidMotionis hereby discovery regarding the be givenninety daysfrom the dateofthis Orderto conduct Lender'sSenrice, issues standing with regards Defendant to Inc., andof Lender's of in ServiceInc.'s involvement the allegedconspirarywith Defendants Washinglon MutualBanh FA andFirstAmerican eAppraiselT inflateappraisal to values. DATBD: 2008

8 9 l0 ll l2 l3

t4
I)

L6 L7 18 19 2A 21, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
IPR PGEDIORDERnArmFPLl|tJrFFS 6rn{ C4AE NO.:8:08{r.80868 {RgWl F0R.A,R@AIbtr,l! DCSCO}F?