08-03-07 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Countrywide-Atty Moldawsky (Bryan Cave, LLP) False Reply on Extortionist Motion for Sanctions Contempt-s

8/9/2019 08-03-07 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Countrywide-Atty Moldawsky (Bryan Cave, LLP) False Reply on Extortionist

1/18

1 BRYANCAVELLPJohn W. Amberg (CA State Bar No. 108166)

2 Jenna Moldawsky (CA State Bar No. 246109)3 120 Broadway, Suite 300

Santa Monica, California 90401-23864 Telephone: 310-576-2100

Facsimile: 310-576-220056 Sanford Shatz (CA State Bar No. 127229)

Todd A. Boock (CA State Bar No. 181933)7 5220 Las Virgenes Road, MS: AC-118 Calabasas, California 91302Telephone: 818-871-60459 Facsimile: 818-871-4669

10 Attorneys for Non-Party COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.11

15 NIVIE SAMAAN, et aI.,NON-PARTY COUNTRYWIDE HOMELOANS, INC.'S REPLY TODEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK'SOPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOWCAUSEWHY HE SHOULD NOT BEHELD IN CONTEMPT;DECLARATION OF JOHN W.AMBERG

Case No. SC087400Plaintiffs,

Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

vs.

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT

16

121314

171819 JOSEPH ZERNIK, et ai.

2120

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide") is not a party to this action, nor has it

22232425 I.26

Introduction

DATE:TIME:DEPT:

March 7, 20089:30 a.m.J (Hon. Terry B. Friedman)

27 ever sought to intervene. Countrywide became involved in this case only after Defendant28

SMOIOOCS6712SS.I COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY TO ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TOORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT

Digitally signedby Joseph Zernik

DN:cn=JosephZernik,o,ou,

email=jz12345@e

arthlink.net,c=USDate:2010.05.12

15:08:59 +03'00'


2/18

1 Joseph Zernik ("Zernik") served Countrywide with four document subpoenas. Though2 Countrywide fully complied with all of Zernik's subpoenas, Zernik has continued to harass3 and badger Countrywide officers and employees for almost a year in an attempt to discover4 additional documents and information, well after Countrywide complied with the subpoenas5 and discovery was cut off. Zernik has sought this information, none ofwhich exists, to6 support his incorrect belief that Countrywide, plaintiff Nivie Samaan, various superior court7 judges and others have conspired to defraud him. Nothing could be further from the truth,8 and there is no evidence to support Zernik's outrageous claims.9 Countrywide wants no part of this lawsuit and has no stake in its outcome. I t simply10 wants to be left alone, but Zernik has shown that he will not stop harassing Countrywide11 unless there are consequences for his actions. Countrywide was forced to seek relief from this12 Court to stop the harassment. Countrywide did not pursue contempt proceedings against13 Zernik simply for the sake of punishment. Zernik has been freely harassing Countrywide14 officers and employees for many months without consequence, which has merely emboldened15 him. Countrywide believes that monetary sanctions and a contempt ruling are the only means16 of finally putting an end to Zernik's harassment.17 Zernik's Opposition to the Court 's Order to Show Cause ("Opposition"), aside from18 being procedurally defective1, is replete with irrelevant "facts," misrepresented legal authority,19 and conspiracy theories, and completely fails to provide any justification for his repeated20 violations of the Court's Protective Order. Further, Zernik's contention that he was not21 properly served with the Court's contempt order is disingenuous, as Countrywide made every22 reasonable ef fort to personally serve Zernik with the contempt order, and Zernik simply23 evaded service. Zernik's avoidance tactics should not be rewarded.24 Countrywide can - and will - establish all the elements of contempt beyond a25 reasonable doubt. The Protective Order is a valid and enforceable order, established most26 recently by this Court' s imposition of sanctions against Zernik for his violations thereof on27

1 California Rule ofCourt 3.1113(d) provides that "no opening or responding memorandum may28 exceed 15 pages." Cal. Rule Ct. 3.1113(d). Zemik's Opposition is 20 pages.SMOIDOCS671255.1

2 COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY TO ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TOORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT


3/18

1 February 15,2008. Zernik had actual knowledge of the Protective Order, as evidenced by his2 presence at the hearing on July 23, 2007 granting the Order and submission thereon, was3 capable of complying with the Order, and willfully chose to disobey it. Punishment for4 contempt is clearly warranted. Countrywide is not requesting that Zernik serve any jail time;5 in fact, Countrywide would oppose such a punishment. Rather, Countrywide only asks that6 the Court find Zernik in contempt for his repeated willful violations of a valid court order.7 Zernik continues to show no respect for the Court 's rulings and he should be held in8 contempt and sanctioned accordingly.9 II.1011

CD 12X> ~

14~ 15'" 0

CD c 160~ '"E 17'"n

1819202122232425262728

Zernik Evaded Personal Service of the Contempt OrderZernik was present at the February 15,2008 hearing on Countrywide'S motion to

enforce the protective order and for other relief when Judge Friedman set the contempthearing for March 7, 2008. Declaration ofJohn W. Amberg ("Amberg Decl."), 2. Zernikwas present when Judge Friedman directed Countrywide to personally serve Zernik with thecontempt order by Tuesday, February 19, 2008. ad. a t 3.) Once Judge Freidman signed thecontempt order on the morning of February 19, Countrywide diligently attempted topersonally serve Zernik with the order, a Notice to Appear, and Countrywide's motion. Asdetailed in the Declaration of Ed Fuchs, attached as Exhibit A to the Amberg Decl., a processserver attempted to personally serve Zernik at both his home and his last known businessaddresses on February 19. See Exhibit A to Amberg Decl. When the process server was toldby another tenant that Zernik no longer practiced at the business address, he traveled toZernik's residence and attempted to serve him there. ad.) At that time, no one was at theresidence. ad.) Approximately an hour and a half later, a process server telephoned Zernik athis residence and when Zernik answered the phone, the process server identified himself andinformed Zernik that he wanted to serve him with documents. ad.) Zernik immediately hungup. ad.) Between the hours of7:15 p.m. and 9:15 p.m., the process server waited outsideZernik's residence in an attempt to personally serve him with the documents. ad.) Therewere lights on in the house and music was playing. ad.) The process server knocked on thedoor and rang the doorbell three times, but no one ever came to the door. ad.) The processSMOIDOCS6712SS.1



4/18

1 server walked around the side of the house looking for Zernik, but the drapes were pulled2 closed. ad.) The process server telephoned Zernik two more times and Zernik hung up on3 him both times. ad.) Eventually, the process server left copies of the documents on4 Zernik's front doorstep. ad.)5 Countrywide diligently attempted to serve Zernik with the documents by hand, but6 Zernik made it impossible to do so. Zernik knew that Countrywide had been ordered to serve7 him personally on February 19, and purposely avoided service. It is improper for Zernik8 actively to evade service and then to dispute service by disingenuously claiming that he simply9 "found an envelope from Countrywide outside his front door." (Opposition, p. 11, In. 23.)10 Zernik has been dodging the consequences of his actions for many months, and his attempt11 to evade service is just another example of his deceptive conduct.12 III. Countrywide Has Standing To Instigate A Contempt Hearing13 Zernik's Opposition states that "Countrywide's standing in Samaan v. Zernik to date14 remains a mystery that the court is refusing to disambiguate." (Opposition, p. 13, In. 24-25.)15 Despite Zernik's contention, Countrywide has consistently made it clear that it is not a party16 to the underlying action. Indeed, the whole impetus of this proceeding is the fact that17 Countrywide would like to be left alone and should have no more to do with this case. In all18 of its briefs and submissions to the Court, Countrywide has referenced itself as a "non-party."19 Countrywide'S continued involvement in this action was solely the result of Zernik's20 intentional harassment of Countrywide officers and employees, and in no way has21 Countrywide attempted to assert itselfinto the underlying action as a party in interest.22 Zernik's unrelenting harassment of Countrywide officers and employees in search of23 additional discovery led Countrywide to seek relief from this Court in the form of a Protective24 Order. Once the Protective Order was granted by the Court, it became a valid standing order25 and Countrywide, as a party to the order, was entitled to seek its enforcement.26 Further, Zernik's legal authority for his contention that Countrywide has no standing27 to pursue a contempt citation is irrelevant and misleading. Zernik cites Lohnes v. Astron28 Computer Products, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1150, 1153 (2001) for the proposition that "for a third

SMOlDOCS671255.14 COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLY TO ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TO

ORDER TO SHOWCAUSE RE: CONTEMPT


5/18

party to seek relief in a pending action, they must intervene." (Opposition, p. 14, In. 3.)

See Miller v. Woods, 148 Cal. App. 3d at 872; Safer v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. 3d at 235. In

Lohnes dealt with a workers' compensation carrier who sought to intervene in an action by anemployee against her employer in order to obtain indemnification. Id. at 1152. The facts ofthe present case are distinguishable and Zernik's reliance on this case is improper. The issueof intervention is irrelevant - Countrywide is not in any way attempting to insert itself intothis case; indeed, it was Zernik who injected Countrywide into this case by serving it with fourdocument subpoenas and then repeatedly harassing its officers and employees. Countrywideis simply asking the Court to punish Zernik for his willful violations of a court order thatCountrywide obtained for its protection in a discovery dispute.

Zernik also cites Miller v. Woods, 148 Cal. App. 3d 862 (1983) and Safer v. SuperiorCourt, 15 Cal. 3d 230 (1975) to support his contention that Countrywide lacks standing topursue contempt proceedings. (Opposition, p. 14, In. 7-12.) However, in both of these cases,the parties pursuing contempt proceedings had no connection to the court order at issue, andneither party was seeking enforcement of an order made on its behalf or for its protection.

Miller and Safer, the parties were unable to proceed with contempt hearings because they hadno "stake" in the order that was violated and no relationship to the order. Here, theProtective Order was granted to protect Countrywide from Zernik's harassment, andCountrywide was integral to its issuance. Countrywide has standing to pursue contemptproceedings against Zernik, due to his willful violations of the Protective Order.

21 IV. The Protective Order Does Not Implicate Zemik's Free Speech Rights

123456789

1011

(0 12o(" )130

1415

ro-u'c 160roC 17oen

181920

22 Zernik's contention that the Protective Order "is an invalid prior restraint on free23 speech" (Opposition, p. 15, In. 20-22) is incorrect. The Court's Protective Order does not24 implicate Zernik's free speech rights in any way. The Protective Order simply directs Zernik25 to "communicate solely with Counti)"'vide's designated counsel and no other officers or26 employees regarding the present action." The Protective Order does not restrict the content27 of Zernik's speech - Zernik is free .to say anything he wants to Countrywide's designated28 counsel or the world at large. All the Protective Order requires is that Zernik, as a defendant

SMOIDOCS671255.1



6/18

1 in pro per, communicate with Countrywide's counsel regarding the present action and not2 with Countrywide 's represented officers or employees. The Protective Order is narrowly3 tailored and limited in scope. Zernik's free speech rights are in no way threatened or eroded4 by the Protective Order , and he is free to convey anything he wants to Countrywide's counsel.5 v.6

CountrywideWill Establish That Zernik Is In Contempt ofCourt Beyond aReasonable Doubt

Court , 9 Cal. App. 3d 601, 604-605 (1970). The terms of the Protective Order are clear and

An order is enforceable in an indirect contempt proceeding if the order is in writing orentered in the Court's minutes, and if the order is definitive and certain. Ketscher v. Superior

Zernik correctly states in his Opposition that a finding of contempt requires anenforceable valid order, actual knowledge of the order, an ability to comply with the order,and willful violation of the order . (Opposition, p. 14, In. 14-16.) Countrywide can - and will- establish all of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

A. Valid and Enforceable Order

unequivocal- Zernik was directed to communicate "solely with Countrywide's designatedcounsel and no other Countrywide officers or employees regarding the present action." Theminute order from July 23, 2007 confirms that Countrywide's proposed order "is signed andeffective as of this date ." See Ex. C to Declaration ofJohn W. Amberg in Support ofCountrywide's motion to enforce the protective order and for other relief ("First AmbergDecl.") Zernik cannot, and has not, made any legitimate argument to contest the validity andenforceability of the Protect ive Order. Further, at the February 15, 2008 hearing onCountrywide's motion to enforce the protective order and for other relief, this Court affIrmedthe Protective Order and sanctioned Zernik for his repeated violations thereof. (Amberg

24 Decl,,-r 2.) Countrywide can meet its burden of proof.

78910

11cD 12o(" )

0"- 130(")'


7/18

1 Amberg Decl. at 3. Zernik was specifically told byJudge Connor that he was to2 communicate only with corporate counsel and that the order had been granted. CId. at 5,3 Ex. D.) Zernik was served with a copy of the July 23 minute order which confirms that4 Countrywide's proposed order "is signed and effective as of this date." CId. at 15.) In his5 emails to Countrywide's counsel, he refers to the Protective Order numerous times, indicating6 that he is fully aware of the Protective Order. CId. at ~ 10-12.) Countrywide can establish7 beyond a reasonable doubt that Zernik had knowledge of the Protective Order.

9 Zernik was clearly able to direct his communication to Countrywide's counsel. This islOan action within his exclusive control, and something he has clearly shown to be capable of in11 the past. The Protective Order did not restrict Zernik's ability to communicate with12 Countrywide; it only mandated that Zernik was to communicate solely with counsel. Instead13 of complying with the Protective Order, which he is perfectly capable of doing, Zernik14 disobeyed it repeatedly. Countrywide can meet its burden.

16 Zernik has shown contempt for the Protective Order and willfully violated it numerous17 times. Zernik has acknowledged the existence of the Protective Order, telling Countrywide18 counsel that "you recently threatened to enforce the protective (gag) order issued by Judge19 Connor" and that "i t appeared that such order was indeed issued to you by Judge Connor."20 (See First Amberg D e c l ~ at 12, Ex. K.) Despite admitting that the Protective Order is in21 place, Zernik knowingly and intentionally violated the Protective Order numerous times by22 directly contacting Countrywide officers. After Countrywide's counsel informed Zernik that23 Countrywide would be seeking redress for his violations of the Protective Order, Zernik sent

8

15

c.

D.

Ability To Comply

Willful Violation

24 an email entitled ''VIOLATION OF COURT ORDER?WHAT COURT ORDER?" and25 asserted "i t is difficult to believe it ever existed." CId. at 14, Ex. M.) Zernik clearly indicated26 his intention to violate or ignore the Protective Order.27 Zernik contends that "obviously, willful violation could not be demonstrated when28 Defendant engaged in intensive search for the order." (Opposition, p. 19, In. 16-17.) The

SM01DOCS671255.17 COUNTRYWIDE'S REPLYTO ZERNIK 'S OPPOSITION TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT


8/18

1 only thing that is "obvious" is that Zernik is attempting to wiggle out of his court-imposed2 obligation by claiming that he could not find a signed order in the court flle. However, Zernik3 was present at the July 23 hearing granting the Protective Order, was directly told by Judge4 Connor that he was to communicate solely with Countrywide's counsel, and was provided5 with a copy of the minute order which states that the Protective Order was "signed and6 effective as of this date." Where a party, with knowledge of the terms of an order and ability7 to comply therewith, did not do so, it can be reasonably inferred that their inaction was8 intentional, despite express disclaimers of contemptuous intent. City of Vernon v. Superior9 Court, 38 Ca1.2d 509, 518 (1952). I t is beyond a reasonable doubt that Zernik acted willfully10 and intentionally in violating the Court Order and should be sanctioned accordingly.11 VI. A Jury Trial Is Not Warranted

There is generally no right to a jury trial in civil contempt proceedings. SeeInternational Molders Local 164 v. Superior Court, 70 Cal. App. 3d 395, 405 (1977). A personcited for contempt has a right to a jury trial only if the punishment imposed is "serious."International Union United Mine Workers ofAmerica v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 826 (1994); Inre Kreitman, 40 Cal. App. 4th 750, 753 (1995). Though the standard for what constitutes a"serious" punishment is not readily ascertainable, the cases that have found "seriouspunishment" have found it only where the punishment includes imprisonment for more than

19 six months and a fine of $52,000,000.00. See International Union United Mine Workers of

to 12oC')130

14E15

0l 'c 160roc 17oC/)

18

20 America v. Bagwell, supra, 512 U.S. 821,827. The circumstances of this case do not suggest21 that serious punishment such as extensive prison time or excessive fines is warranted.22 Countrywide is not requesting any jail time, and in fact would oppose Zernik's imprisonment.23 Countrywide simply asks that the Court sanction Zernik in an amount to be determined by24 the Court, but in any event not less than $1,000.00 for each violation pursuant to California25 Code of Civil Procedure Section 1218(a). As Zernik has violated the Protective Order a total26 of nine (9) times, Countrywide asks the Court to sanction Zernik in an amount of $9,000.00.227

2 Where separate contemptuous acts are committed, contemptor may be punished for each separate28 offense. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 1209, 1211; See also Hawk v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. App. 3dSMOIDOCS671255.1

8 COUNTRYWlDE'S REPLY TO ZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TOORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: CONTEMPT


9/18

567891011


10/18

1 DECLARATION OF JOHN W. AMBERG2 I, John W. Amberg, declare:3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all the courts of the State of4 California. I am an partner in the law firm ofBryan Cave LLP, counsel of record for5 Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Countrywide"). I have personal knowledge of the facts set6 forth in this declaration.7 2. On February 15, 2008, I attended the hearing on Countrywide's motion to8 enforce the protective order and for other relief (the "Motion"). DefendantJoseph Zernik9 ("Zernik") was present at the hearing and represented himself. At the hearing, the Honorable10 Terry B. Freidman affirmed the Protective Order and sanctioned Zernik for his repeated11 violations thereof.


11/18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ . / "J 1181HX3


12/18

1 BRYANCAVELLPJohnW. Amberg (CA State Bar No. 108166)2 Jenna Moldawsky (CA State BarNo. 246109)120 Broadway, Suite 3003 Santa Monica, California 90401-2386Telephone: 310-576-21004 Facsimile: 310-576-22005 Sanford Shatz (CA State Bar No. 127229)

Todd A. Boock (CA State BarNo. 181933)6 5220 Las Virgenes Road, MS: AC-11Calabasas, California 913027 Telephone: 818-871-6045Facsimile: 818-871-46698

CONFORMED COpyOF ORIGINALFILEDLosAngeles Superior Court

FEB 2 1 ?nnAlehn Al Glarke j Executive Officer/Clerk

Attorneys for Non-Party COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.91011

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICt

(0 120M NIVIE SAMAAN, et aI.,o 130M'o tQ.41g Plaintiffs,. . J""c?) . 14~ 0;tn; 15-oO vs.0


13/18

1 2. On February 19, 2008, attorneys at Bryan Cave providedme with copies of (1)2 a Notice to Defendant]oseph Zernik ("Zernik") to Appear on March 7, 2008 to Show Cause3 Why He Should Not Be Held In Contempt (which attached the Court's February 19,20084 Order re: Contempt as Exhibit A); and (2) Countrywide's motion to enforce the protective5 order and for other relief, including an order to show cause re: contempt. I provided the First6 Legal dispatch office with a copy of these documents.7 3. The First Legal service order (Control No. 4023136) indicated that the

14 attempted to personally serve Zernik at his business address in Beverly Hills and was15 informed by an individual at the office building that Zernik no longer works at that address.

17 Legal process server attempted to personally serve Zernik at his residence, bu t no one was18 home at either time. The process server slid a copy of the Notice to Appear (with the19 attached Court Order) under Zernik's front door.

8 documents were to be personally served on Zernik on February 19,2008. The service order. 9 contained two addresses for Zernik: a residence address of 2415 Saint George Street, Los10 Angeles, California 90027, and a business address of9675 BrightonWay, Beverly Hills,11 California, 90210. I was also provided with a telephone number for Zernik, which was (310)12 435-9107. A true and correct copy of the service order is attached hereto as ExhibitA.

On February 19,2008 at approximately 4:30 p.m. and again at 5:03 p.m., a First

On February 19,2008 at approximately 4:15 p.m., a First Legal process server

5.

4.

16

13

20 6. The same day, I called Zernik's phone number at 5:30 p.m., right before I left21 the Bryan Cave offices to attempt to personally serve Zernik myself. When I called, Zernik22 picked up and I identified myself as a process server who wanted to serve him with23 documents. Zernik immediately hung up.24 7. Between the hours of 7:15 p.m. and 9:15 p.m., I waited outside Zernik's25 residence in an attempt to personally serve him with the documents. When I arrived, there26 were lights on in the house and music was playing. I knocked on the door and rang the27 doorbell three times. No one ever came to the door. I walked around the side of the house28 looking for Zernik, bu t the drapes were pulled closed. I also called Zernik two more times

SMOIIXXS669843J 2DECLARATION OF ED FUCHSREGARDING SERVICE OFDEFENDANT JOSEPH ZERNIK


14/18

456789

1011


15/18

EXHIBIT A


16/18

.J

, 5 , H4J(213) 250-1111 Fax (213) 2""SO- 9-r"(213) 250-9111 Fax (213) 25Q..: 197(310) 277-9111 Fax (310) 277-9153(310) 277-7101 Fax (310) 277-9153(909) 779-1110 Fax (909) 779-0100(619) 231-9111 Fax (619) 231-1361(415) 626-3111 Fax (415) 626-1331(714) 541-1110 Fax (714) 541-8182

___- - t t H > O I - ' ~ : 5 1 1 1 Fax (916) 443-3111

'!IV . ~ L o s A n g e ~ -Direct line to

Los Angeles (West)Direct line to legal

Inland EmpireS3nDiegoSan FranciscoSanta Anasacramento

/ ~ t f t f ' ~ ~ ~ ~ l;:- ' : ~ i ~ _:; Support

, ~ r J Services.-.l ' .

web address: firstlegalsupport.comSERVICE OF PROCESS FORMFIRMNAME: BRYAN CAVE LLP120 BROADWAY SUITE 300SANTA MONICA, CA 90401PHONE: (310) 576-2326FAX:AnY I SECRETARY: Frank EXT: 2354

DOCUMENTS:Notice of Hearing

ATE: 02/19/08

CHARGEREFERENCE I AnY. CODE:0211679/FR4 ADVANCE WITNESS FEES DYES 0 NOCASE NO: SC087400 LAST DAY TOSERVE ~

Short title of case:Samaan, et al. v. Zemik, et al. HEARING 3/7/08SET FOR: AT 9:30 a.m. JDEPTIDIV _TYPE OF SERVICESERVE: Joseph Zernik

(PLEASE INDICATE NAME EXACTLY AS IT SHOULD APPEAR ON PROOF OF SERVICE)RESIDENCE ADDRESS: BUSINESS ADDRESS:2415 Saint George StreetLos Feliz, CA 90027

o PERSONAL ONLYo SUBSTITUTED OKo DEUVER I DROP SERVELEVEL OF SERVICE

TELEPHONE #: (310) 435-9107 TELEPHONE #:HOURS WORKED: 9-5

D SPECIALIII ASAP (Same Day)o RUSH (Next Business Day)D REGULAR (3-4 Day)

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:

PERSONALLY SERVECALL WHEN DELIVERED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WITNESSFEES

CHECKWRITTEN BY:o CLIENT 0 FLSSAMOUNT:CHECK#:

COMMENTS:

HEIGHT WEIGHT HAIR EYES AGE SEX RACE ADDITIONAl

DATE SERVED TlMESERVED PROCESS SERVER PERSON SERVED {TITLE


17/18

PROOF OF S E R V 1 ~ E

Executed on February 21, 2008, at Santa Monica, California.I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States ofAmerica and the

State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

[2J (BY OVERNITE EXPRESS) I deposited in a box or other facility maintained byOvemite Express, an express carrier service, or delivered to a courier or driver authorizedby said express carrier service to receive documents, a t rue copy (o r original) of theforegoing document, in an envelope designated by said express service carrier, withdelivery fees pa id o r provided for.

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State ofCalifornia. I am over the age of 18and not a party to the within action. My business address is 120 Broadway, Suite 300, SantaMonica, California 90401-2305.

On February 21, 2008, I served the foregoing document(s), described asDECLARATION OF ED FUCHS REGARDING SERVICE OF NOTICE TOAPPEAR ON MARCH 7,2008 AND ORDER RE: CONTEMPT ON DEFENDANTJOSEPH ZERNIK, on the interested party(s) in this action, as follows:

Moe Keshavarzi, Esq.Sheppard Mullin Richter& Hampton, LLP333 South Hope Street, 48th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071-1448Facsllnile: [email protected]

David J. PasternakPsternak, Pasternak & Patton, LLP1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200Los Angeles, California 90067-2523Telephone: 310-553-1500Facsllnile: [email protected]

Robert J. Shulkin, Esq.Legal DepartmentColdwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company11611 San Vicente Boulevard, 9th floorLos Angeles, CA 90049Facsimile: 310-447-1902r o b c r t . s h u l k i n @ ~ c a m o v e s . c o mo (BY MAIL) I placed a true copy of the foregoing document in a sealed envelopeaddressed to each interested party as set forth above. I placed each such envelope, with postagethereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing at Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica, California. Iam readily familiar with Bryan Cave LLP's practice for collection and processing ofcorrespondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, thecorrespondence would be deposited in the United States Postal Service on that same day in theordinary course of business.

Joseph Zernik DMD PhD2415 Saint George StreetLos Feliz, California 90027Telephone: (310) 435-9107Facsimile: (801) 998-0917jz12345(iv,earthlink.nct

SMOID


18/18

PROOF OF SER lICE

Executed on March 4, 2008, at Santa Monica, California.I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States ofAmerica

and the State ofCalifornia that the foregoing is true and correct.

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 andnot a party to the within action. My business address is 120 Broadway, Suite 300, Santa Monica,California 90401-2305.

Robert J. Shulkin, Esq.Legal DepartmentColdwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company11611 San Vicente Boulevard, 9th floorLos Angeles, CA 90049Facsimile: [email protected]

Joseph Zernik2415 Saint George StreetLos Feliz, California 90027Telephone: (310) 435-9107Facsimile: (801) [email protected]

David J. PasternakPasternak, Pasternak & Patton, LLP1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200Los Angeles, California 90067-2523Telephone: 310-553-1500Facsimile: [email protected]

(BY OVERNITE EXPRESS) I deposited in a box or other facility maintained byOvernite Express, an express carrier service, or delivered to a courier or driver authorized by saidexpress carrier service to receive documents, a true copy (or original) of the foregoing document, inan envelope designated by said express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for.

Moe Keshavarzi, Esq.Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP333 South Hope Street, 48th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071-1448Facsimile: [email protected]

On March 4, 2008, I served the foregoing document(s), described as NON-PARTYCOUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT JOSEPHZERNIK'S OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSEWHY HE SHOULDNOT BE HELD IN CONTEMPT; DECLARATION OF JOHN W. AMBERG, on theinterested party(s) in this action, as follows:

23456789

1011

Documents

08-03-07 Samaan v Zernik (SC087400) Countrywide-Atty Moldawsky (Bryan Cave, LLP) False Reply on Extortionist Motion for Sanctions Contempt-s