ALADDIN DINAALI 6000 Canterbury Drive, D204exhibits.guide/Ex Parte Application for Stay and Sanctions 2.pdf · This Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030, 128.7

1

DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION

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

ALADDIN DINAALI

6000 Canterbury Drive, D204

Culver City, CA 90230

(310) 503.5911

DEFENDANT in Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY

WEST DISTRICT

MCFARLIN LLP, a corporation,

TIMOTHY G. MCFARLIN, an individual,

JARROD Y. NAKANO, an individual,

GARY T. DOTE, an individual,

PLAINTIFFS,

vs.

ALADDIN DINAALI, an individual

DOES 1-100, Inclusive,

DEFENDANTS.

Case No.: SC124187

[Honorable Gerald Rosenberg]

Dept.: K

DEFENDANT ALADDIN DINAALI’S EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER OF

THE COURT:

1. TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT BE

SANCTIONED FOR CONTEMPT

OF COURT AND ABUSE OF

PROCESS;

2. APPROVING THE FEE WAIVER

BEFORE THE COURT;

3. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

DISQUALIFICATION OF THE

JUDGE GERALD ROSENBERG

PURSUANT TO CCP § 170.1;

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES; PROPOSED ORDER

Complaint Filed: May 18, 2015

Hearing Date: February 27, 2017

Hearing Time: 8:30 am

Trial Date: July 28, 2017

2


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

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

YOU ARE HERBY NOTIFIED that at 8:30 am or soon after as the matter may be

heard on February 27, 2017, in Department K of the above-entitled court, located at 1725 Main

Street, CA 90401, Defendant ALADDIN DINAALI (“Dinaali”) will and hereby does move for

an order of this Court to 1) to show cause why plaintiffs should not be sanctioned for contempt

of court and abuse of process; 2) approving the fee waiver before the Court; 3) or in the

alternative disqualification of the judge Gerald Rosenberg pursuant to CCP § 170.1.

This Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.030, 128.7 and 1209(4) on

the grounds that the Plaintiffs have consistently abused the process, harassed Dinaali and

knowingly and deliberately misled this Court. Plaintiffs have Unclean Hands.

This case and the underlying actions of the Plaintiffs is tantamount to extortion and

Dinaali is seeking criminal prosecution pursuant to penal code 520.

In the process, Plaintiffs have filed bogus declarations under penalty of perjury for

which Dinaali is also seeking prosecution pursuant to penal code 118.

Dinaali is also seeking criminal prosecution against these corrupt attorneys for

conspiring with some clients they represent in related criminal and civil cases pursuant to penal

code 182 for falsely accusing Dinaali of crimes he has not committed.

Plaintiff Jarrod Nakano has also physically assaulted Dinaali at the courthouse.

Dinaali has previously served and filed two disqualification motions on this Honorable

Court pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 170.1 and 170.6 both of which have been denied on the

grounds that not fact existed to warrant recusal.

Should the Court decline to hold Plaintiffs accountable for their unlawful actions after

this application, this would constitute sufficient grounds constituting recusal of this Court from

this case.

The Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the Memorandum of Points and

Authorities and Declaration served and filed herewith, the records and file herein, and on such

affidavits or declarations and memoranda of points and authorities as may subsequently be filed

herein, and on such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.

Dated: February 27, 2017

By: __________________________________

Aladdin Dinaali, Defendant in Pro Per

3


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

IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES

1. McFarlin LLP, 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1025, Irvine, CA 92614, Tel. No, (949) 544-2640.

2. Timothy G. McFarlin, McFarlin LLP, 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1025, Irvine, CA 92614.

3. Gary T. Dote, McFarlin LLP, 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1025, Irvine, CA 92614.

4. Jarrod Y. Nakano, McFarlin LLP, 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1025, Irvine, CA 92614.

DECLRATION OF NOTICE TO OTHER PARTIES

Notice was served on all the parties and their attorneys of record regarding this Ex Parte

Application pursuant to Rule 3.1204 via email on February 23, 2017 at 6:04 am.

Plaintiffs were advised of the nature of the application and were asked if they would attend and

oppose the application but they have not responded.


Submitted By: __________________________________


DECLRATION OF ALADDIN DINAALI

I, Aladdin Dinaali declare:

1. I am the Defendant in Pro Per in the above entitled action.

2. I have complete personal knowledge of the facts of the case.

3. I make this declaration in support of my Ex Parte Application.

4. I will suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not grant this ex parte application.

5. Plaintiffs will not suffer any injury while the appeal is in progress.

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the

information entered on this form is true and correct.


Submitted By: __________________________________


4


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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1. PREFACE

At the February 14, 2017 Motion to Compel Further Responses hearing which was

advanced to February 28, 2017, Plaintiffs falsely claimed that Dinaali had contacted the

occupants of the building complex where they practice law threatening that unless the Plaintiffs

dropped the present lawsuit against him he would perpetrate a terroristic attack on the building

and requested action from this Court against Dinaali, a matter which also advanced to February

28, 2017.

Plaintiffs are the most corrupt and unscrupulous and malicious attorneys who not only

have filed a completely baseless and bogus suit that they cannot back up with any facts, but

have since done nothing but to file unwarranted moving and opposing papers completely

devoid of any truths or relevance which has resulted in numerous unwarranted motions and

hearings and the first appeal of the case which is currently before the appellate court.

The untruthful allegations made by Plaintiffs against Dinaali during the course of this

action have no purpose but to distort the truth, defame Dinaali and unjustly turn this Court

against Dinaali.

Repeated warnings to Plaintiffs to stop this unlawful and malicious course of conduct

has thus far failed to discourage Plaintiffs as has Dinaali’s repeated pleadings to the judges

presiding over this matter.

Plaintiffs’ clients have bragged that they can buy off judges and repeated failures to

hold Plaintiffs accountable for their illegal actions would only serve to establish the fact that

this Court is biased towards Dinaali in favor of Plaintiffs.

On February 23, 2017, Dinaali contacted Plaintiffs and informed them that unless they

provided proof of their false claims this application would be filed for sanctions against them.

Should the Court decline to hold Plaintiffs accountable yet one more time for repeated

abuse of process by Plaintiffs, or alternatively to recuse itself, there would be no other options

than to seek remedy against Plaintiffs and this Court outside of this case and proceedings.

5


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

2. INTRODUCTION

This defamation suit filed by Plaintiffs seeks monetary damages and injunctive and

declaratory relief against Dinaali for allegedly having posted four websites online defaming

Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs represent two defendants, Michele Lee Barlow and Mark Earl Barlow, in a

suit Aladdin Dinaali v. Endeavor America Loan Services et al., LASC SC 123727 which has

now been transferred to another venue.

Plaintiffs allege that Dinaali, a self-represented plaintiff in the case, has published four

websites in retaliation to a change of venue request by Plaintiffs.

The websites are listed as (1) mcfarlinlaw.info; (2) timothygmcfarlin.com; (3)

jarrodnakano.com; and (4) garydote.com.

The present suit asks of this Court to cause removal of the websites from the internet

and compensate Plaintiffs for damage caused to their reputation.

Plaintiffs erroneously allege that Dinaali, who resides in this jurisdiction, has created

the websites and that the websites were seen and read by residents of this jurisdiction thus the

basis for their choice of this Court as the jurisdiction.

Dinaali has maintained that; (1) The material posted online are true and not false; and

(2) It was not Dinaali who has been responsible for the domains.

The domains in dispute are all registered to a third-party ALI FARDI (“Fardi”) who

resides in Burlington, Massachusetts.

The domains, which are all passive and non-commercial and outside of the purview of

this Court, were located in Germany and being administered in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs have so far in the case offered absolutely no proof of any of their allegations.

Plaintiffs have failed to prove that: (1) It was Dinaali who owns the domain names used in the

websites; (2) It was Dinaali who has created the websites; (3) It was Dinaali who has published

and hosted the websites; (4) It was Dinaali who has targeted the residents of this jurisdiction;

and (5) That any of the residents of these jurisdiction have seen these sites.

Plaintiffs have embarked on a very abusive and unwarranted fishing expedition by

6


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

outright abuse of discovery process trying to find anything they can get their hands on without

knowing what they are looking for.

On September 17, 2015, Plaintiffs served on Dinaali three discovery documents

entitled: (1) Plaintiff McFarlin LLP’s Request for Admissions (Set One); (2) Plaintiff McFarlin

LLP’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One) to Defendant Aladdin Dinaali; and (3)

Plaintiff McFarlin LLP’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) to Defendant Aladdin Dinaali.

Dinaali timely responded to the discovery.

On December 2, 2015, Plaintiffs served a Meet and Confer Letter indicating that they

were not satisfied with the responses threatening that unless Dinaali amended his responses

they would seek sanctions against Dinaali despite the fact that they would not specify what

exactly they needed other than what they were provided.

In the meantime, on November 27, 2015, Dinaali became aware that on November 23,

2015 Plaintiffs had issued subpoenas to the domains’ registrar 1&1 INTERNET INC. (“1&1”),

as well as to WHO.IS which is merely a website displaying the registration data of the sites.

The subpoena seeks personal and financial information of third parties unrelated to the

case who have expressed their opinions on site and are now subject to harassment by Plaintiffs

who are threatening everybody related to the sites with all kinds of civil and criminal actions

and retaliations.

A Motion to Quash Subpoena was heard on July 28, 2016 and was rejected. An appeal

was filed immediately thereafter and is now perfected and pending.

Plaintiffs have two other motions pending before this Court, a Motion to Compel

Further Responses to Production and a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special

Interrogatories are currently set for February 28, 2017.

Plaintiffs are asking the Court to compel Dinaali to provide more documents and

responses without specifying what the desired documents or responses are.

Plaintiffs are already in possession of all the documents related to the sites and all these

motions and appeals are absolutely unnecessary and will not yield any other results no matter

what this Court or the appellate court rules. This is a clear violation of discovery statutes.

7


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

3. LEGAL STANDARDS

California Code of Judicial Ethics Canon 3D (2) provides:

Whenever a judge has personal knowledge, or concludes in a judicial

decision, that a lawyer has committed misconduct or has violated any

provision of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the judge shall take

appropriate corrective action, which may include reporting the violation to

the appropriate authority.

Code of Civ. Proc. § 128.7 provides:

(b) By presenting to the court, whether by signing, filing, submitting, or

later advocating, a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other

similar paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the

best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an

inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, all of the following

conditions are met:

(1) It is not being presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as to

harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of

litigation.

(2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are

warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the

extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of

new law.

(3) The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support

or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after

a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

(4) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if

specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or

belief.

California Attorneys Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-200 provides:

A member shall not seek, accept, or continue employment if the member

knows or should know that the objective of such employment is:

(A) To bring an action, conduct a defense, assert a position in litigation,

or take an appeal, without probable cause and for the purpose of

harassing or maliciously injuring any person; or

(B) To present a claim or defense in litigation that is not warranted under

existing law, unless it can be supported by a good faith argument for an

extension, modification, or reversal of such existing law.

California Attorneys Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 5-200 provides:

“In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member: (A) Shall employ, for the

purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means

8


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

only as are consistent with truth; (B) Shall not seek to mislead the judge,

judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law; (C)

Shall not intentionally misquote to a tribunal the language of a book,

statute, or decision; (D) Shall not, knowing its invalidity, cite as authority

a decision that has been overruled or a statute that has been repealed or

declared unconstitutional; and (E) Shall not assert personal knowledge of

the facts at issue, except when testifying as a witness.”

Penal Code 118 (a) provides:

Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare,

depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in

any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be

administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material

matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies,

declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in

which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted

by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states

as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of

perjury…….

See: Eschwig v. State Bar (1969) 1 C3d 8, 18, 81 CR 352, 359 – lawyer disbarred for

misleading probate court about state assets to prevent scrutiny of lawyer’s acquisition of estate

property from client. Franklin v. State Bar (1986) 41 C3d 700, 709, 224 CR 738, 743 – a

lawyer may be disciplined for misrepresenting matters of public record to the court.

California has long recognized the maxim that “No one can take advantage of his own

wrong. (Civ. Code. § 3517.) Put another way, “[h]e who comes into equity must with clean

hands.” (See Wilson v. S.L. Rey, Inc. (1993) 17 Cal. App.4th 234, 244: Kendall-Jackson Winery

Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 970, 978.)

The underpinnings of the doctrine/defense of unclean hands was explained in Kendall-

Jackson Winery, Ltd.:

The unclean hands doctrine protests judicial integrity and promotes justice. It protects

judicial integrity because allowing a plaintiff with unclean hands to recover in an action creates

9


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

doubts as to the justice provided by the judicial system. Thus, precluding recovery to the

unclean plaintiff protects the courts, rather than the opposing parties’ interest. [Citation

omitted.] The doctrine promotes justice by making a plaintiff answer for its own misconduct in

the action. It prevents “a wrongdoer from enjoying the fruits of his transgression.” [Citation

omitted.] [At p.p. 978-970.]

4. PLAINTIFFS HAVE MADE NUMEROUS FALSE STATEMENTS DURING

THE PROCEEDINGS SOME MADE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

A) In their Complaint, Plaintiffs have falsely alleged that Dinaali had illegally

trespassed onto the home of their clients Michele and Mark Barlow. This statement

is false and Plaintiffs have refused to provide proof of their claim.

B) In their Complaint, Plaintiffs have falsely alleged that Dinaali has attempted to

extort money from them. This statement is false and Plaintiffs have refused to

provide proof of their claim.

C) In their Complaint, Plaintiffs have falsely alleged that Dinaali has published and

distributed defamatory sites against them. This statement is false and Plaintiffs have

refused to provide proof of their claim.

D) In their Complaint, Plaintiffs have falsely alleged that the sites were published in

retaliation for a change of venue motion filed by Plaintiffs. This statement is false

and Plaintiffs have refused to provide proof of their claim.

E) In their Complaint, Plaintiffs have falsely alleged that the sites were seen by

residents of Los Angeles County. This statement is false and Plaintiffs have refused

to provide proof of their claim.

F) In their opposition document to the motion to quash subpoena which has ended up

10


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

in appeal’s court Plaintiffs have falsely claimed that the motion was never served on

them via mail. This statement is false as post documents exist.

G) In their opposition document to the motion to quash subpoena which has ended up

in appeal’s court Plaintiffs have falsely claimed that the subpoena was issued to

1&1 Internet Inc. as the publishers and host of the sites. All available data on the

internet clearly shows that 1&1 Internet Inc. was not the publisher of the sites. Ipage

internet site was.

H) Under penalty of perjury, Plaintiff Jarrod Y. Nakano has falsely claimed that the

sites were discovered by his wife at a school function. Nakano claims that the sites

which were discovered through a Yahoo search were subsequently seen by others

during the function. This statement is false and Plaintiffs have refused to provide

proof of their claim.

I) Under penalty of perjury, Plaintiff Timothy G. McFarlin has claimed that the firm of

McFarlin was retained by Michele and Mark Barlow. This statement is false and

Plaintiffs have refused to provide proof of their claim.

J) Under the penalty of perjury, Plaintiff Gary Dote has falsely claimed that Dinaali

ignored and did not respond to a meet and confer request regarding a motion for

change of venue and demanded $2,000 in sanctions. Dote provided fabricated

documents in support of his claims. This statement is false and Plaintiffs have

refused to provide proof of their claim.

K) Plaintiffs have falsely claimed that Dinaali has threatened the occupants of the

complex where they practice with terroristic attacks. This statement is false and

Plaintiffs have refused to provide proof of their claim.

11


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

5. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT A FEE WAIVER CURRENTLY PENDING

BEFORE THIS COURT

Dinaali needs to subpoena documents and witnesses to the courthouse as part of

discovery in order to refute Plaintiffs’ false claims and in preparation for or during the course

of a trial if the case goes to trial.

6. ALTERNATIVELY THIS COURT SHOULD RECUSE ITSELF FROM THE

CASE

While this Court has in the past denied Dinaali’s request for recusal, should the Court

refuse to hold the Plaintiffs accountable for their criminal actions this time too, there would be

an irrefutable ground for recusal of this Honorable Court through review by appellate court.

7. CONCLUSION

Dinaali respectfully requests that this Application be granted.


Respectfully Submitted By: ____________________________________


12


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

ORDER

Having read and considered the above application, and good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:


_________________________________

Judge of the Superior Court