Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins

Second Amended Complaint Reservation 72197017
1
2
3
4
Joseph C. Rosenblit (Bar No. 131663)
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH C. ROSENBLIT
1370 N. Brea Blvd. Suite 235
Fullerton, CA 92835
877-475-7065
Attorney for Plaintiff;
Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JM Trust
5
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

7
OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
8
9
Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JM Trust,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Case No.: 30-2014-00748493-CU-CO-CJC

Hon. Judge: Frederick P. Aguirre
Department: C23
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH C.
ROSENBLIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO AMEND COMPLAINT
[filed separately]
HUNTINGTON CONTINENTAL TOWN

HOUSE ASSOCIATION, INC, a California
non-profit mutual benefit corporation,
RUSTAN LAINE, in his capacity as President
of Huntington Continental, MYRA KUCK, in
her capacity as Treasurer of Huntington
Continental, KEYSTONE PACIFIC
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., a
California corporation.; CAREY TREFF, in his
capacity as President and CEO of Keystone,
ARTURO CRAYRA, an individual; DIANN
ROBERTSON, an individual; RICHARD
BARR, an individual; and DOES 10 to 50,
Inclusive,
September
8 _:, 2015
_____
Date: _
8:30 _
am_ _ ___
Time:~~
Dept: C23
72197017
_ _ _ _ __
Reservation #: _
Defendants.
20
21
I, Joseph C. Rosenblit, am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all the courts of the
22
1.
23
State of California. I represent plaintiff, Joseph A. Miner in this matter, am familiar with the facts of
24
this case and if called upon to testify I would competently do so.
25
2.
Attached as Exhibit A is the proposed Second Amended Complaint.
26
3.
When the original complaint was drafted and filed I was under certain constraints due to what
27
28
Declaration of Joseph C. Rosenblit
I believed were certain imminent statutes of limitations. I did what I could to include all causes of
action and all facts and all parties. I was nothing if not over inclusive.
4.
adequate time to correctly amend the complaint but did not anticipate the curve ball thrown at me in
the ruling at the ANTI-SLAPP MOTION wherein my interpretation of the law was at odds with the
court's ruling. As I had already filed the first amended complaint I knew it would simply be subject
to attacks on the pleading and I knew that a second amended complaint would have to be filed.
5.
more thoroughly unanticipated road involving the complex interplay of corporate law, the Davis
When defendants initially demurred and brought motions to strike I held the belief that I had
As I undertook to better understand all of the underlying facts of this case it led me on one
10
Sterling Act, case law, the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act and its California counterpart the
11
Rosenthal Act.
12
6.
13
viable defendants were named within the context of all proper causes of action and properly
14
articulated remedies was an incredibly time consuming effort that took me the better part of 73 hours
15
to put together into the drafted {proposed} Second Amended Complaint. And as a solo practitioner
16
with a heavy caseload it was time that had to be spread over 3 months. l
17
7.
18
Complaint are almost identical to those contained in the first amended complaint they are much
19
different in laying out both the necessary elements and the basis of defendant' liability. What I
20
sought to do and hopefully achieved to a greater degree was clarity such that an attack on the
21
pleading could be successfully deflected. I have labored to do so. The court will be the judge of
22
that.
23
8.
24
achieves the avoidance of the round of demurrers that a served first amended complaint would have
The research I did in applying those laws to the facts of this case and making sure that all
Although in terms of the causes of action contained in the {proposed} Second Amended
I believe that, consistent with judicial economy, the {Proposed} Second Amended Complaint
25
26
27
28
Notwithstanding defendants' motion to dismiss, there was no court order ever issued as to when a second amended
complaint was to be filed.

invited and, as such, acts to eliminate any prejudice to defendants. As these defendants are apprised
of the exact nature of the basis of the claims against them and given that all such claims are within
the applicable statutes of limitations there is no prejudice to the defendants.
9.
this action as reflected in the {Proposed} Second Amended Complaint is meritorious and should be
allowed to be heard on those merits.
If the extensive research I have performed has convinced me of nothing else, I believe that
8
9
I swear under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
10
11
DATED: July 9, 2015
By:
12
Joseph
. Rosenblit, Attorney for Plaintiff,
13
Joseph A. Miner
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
Joseph C. Rosenblit (Bar No. 131663)

LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH C. ROSENBLIT
1370 N. Brea Blvd. Suite 235
Fullerton, CA 92835
877-475-7065
Attorney for Plaintiff;
Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JM Trust
5
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ORANGE COUNTY - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
8
9
Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JM

Trust,
Plaintiffs,
10
11
vs.
12
HUNTINGTON CONTINENTAL
TOWN HOUSE ASSOCIATION,
INC, a California non-profit mutual
benefit corporation, RUSTAN
LAINE, in his capacity as President
of Huntington Continental, MYRA
KUCK, in her capacity as Treasurer
of Huntington Continental,
KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, INC., a California
corporation.; CAREY TREFF, in his
capacity as President and CEO of
Keystone, ARTURO CHAYRA, an
individual; DIANN ROBERTSON,
an individual; RICHARD BARR, an
individual; and DOES 10 to 50,
Inclusive,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Case No.: 30-2014-00748493-CU-CO-CJC

Hon. Judge: Frederick P. Aguirre
Department: C23
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:

01. BREACH OF GOVERNING DOCUMENTS;
02. VIOLATIONS OF DAVIS STIRLING ACT;
03. VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL FDCPA
04. VIOLATIONS OF ROSENTHAL ACT;
05. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES;
06. NEGLIGENCE;
07. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE;
08. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;
09. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
10. AIDING AND ABETTING.
Defendants.
22
23
Plaintiff Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JM Trust, an intervivos trust, (hereinafter
24
referred to as Plaintiff or MINER as context requires) through his counsel, based on
25
information and belief, and investigation of counsel, except for those allegations which
26
pertain to the named plaintiff or his attorneys (which are alleged on personal knowledge),
27
brings this action to challenge the illegal, grossly negligent, unfair business, and abusive
28
debt collection practices of Defendants which have caused Plaintiff damage. Plaintiff
Page 1
Complaint for Damages
brings this action against the following defendants: HUNTINGTON CONTINENTAL
TOWN HOUSE ASSOCIATION, INC., (hereinafter HUNTINGTON or
ASSOCIATION); RUSTAN P. LAINE (hereinafter LAINE); MYRA J. KUCK
(hereinafter KUCK); (DOE 1) FELDSOTT AND LEE, a law office (hereinafter
FELDSOTT-LEE); (DOE 2) STANLEY S. FELDSOTT (hereinafter FELDSOTT);
(DOE 3) JACQUELINE P. PAGANO, (hereinafter PAGANO); (DOE 4) TYLER J.
JONES (hereinafter JONES); KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, INC., (hereinafter KEYSTONE); CARY S. TREFF (hereinafter
TREFF); (DOE 5) ERICA L. GRIFFITH (hereinafter GRIFFITH); (DOE 6)
10
BRITTANY BENNETT (hereinafter BENNETT); (DOE 7) RENEE M. BARGER
11
(hereinafter BARGER); (DOE 8) CANE WALKER HARKINS LLP, a law office
12
(hereinafter CANE-WALKER); (DOE 9) JAMES C. HARKINS (hereinafter
13
HARKINS); and DOES 10 to 50, Inclusive, (individually and collectively,
14
Defendants), and alleges as follows:
15
16
I. INTRODUCTION
1.
This action, filed by the Plaintiff Joseph Miner, an owner of a separate
17
interest located within the Huntington Continental Town House Association, arises from
18
alleged violations of law and contract committed by a homeowner Association, members of
19
the Board of Directors, various paid agents of the Association including debt collectors, law
20
firms and attorneys, and certain Directors and Officers who control these entities.
21
2.
Plaintiff, under two separate legal standings, brings this action in part on his
22
own behalf, and in part as a member on behalf of the 445 homeowner-members (lot
23
owners) of the Association. A portion of the complaint challenges the multiple violations of
24
law and abusive debt collection practices by Defendants. A portion of the complaint
25
challenges the unjust enrichment of the Associations service providers: Feldsott-Lee,
26
Cane-Walker and Keystone - two debt collection law firms and a debt collection /
27
management company.
28
3.
While the Association is ultimately responsible for the acts of its Directors
Page 2
and its agents, Plaintiff on information and belief, identifies these entities as the
perpetrator of the alleged bad acts and violations of law to bring clarity to this action - who,
what, where, when. All allegations and causes of action within this complaint began
with, arose from, are proximate to, are connected to, are predicated on, and are a
direct result of the assessment debt collection activities against plaintiff.
4.
Service providers: Feldsott-Lee [exhibit #1 ], Cane-Walker [exhibit #2],
Keystone [exhibit #3 ] have signed written contracts with the Association. Feldsott and
Keystone contracts contain indemnification clauses. The providers are indemnified by the
Association under certain situations. Plaintiff alleges these service providers are not
10
indemnified and should not be indemnified for illegal acts or violations of statute. Plaintiff
11
alleges illegal acts include violations of the State and Federal debt collection acts,
12
violations of the Davis Stirling Act, and any other illegal acts that are direct or proximate to
13
collection of Miners debt set forth herein.
14
5.
Plaintiff contends there are three significant separate but related issues
15
addressed in this action: 1) the failed and illegal collection and attempted foreclosure
16
scheme implemented by Feldsott-Lee, 2) the pre-foreclosure and collection scheme carried
17
out by Keystone and Cane-Walker, and 3) the unjust enrichment of these service providers
18
and associates during these extortion-like illegal debt collection endeavors. Miner contends
19
these acts have damaged Miner, his family, and separately damaged the 445 good and
20
honest members of the Association. At the start of this battle1 Miner had notified the
21
Huntington Board of Directors including President Rustan Laine and Treasurer Myra Kuck
22
of these unjust issues, such as the rejection of his assessment payments and inability to get
23
accounting, in writing by letter and email. His complaints and warnings fell on deaf ears.
24
6.
While Association member-owners like Miner have many rights by law,
25
Miner contends the Association and its service providers simply ignore those rights - and
26
the law, and then run roughshod over the defenseless homeowners. The lawyers use
27
28
Orange County Superior Court civil case : 30-2011-00466754
Page 3
litigation privilege as a shield from lawsuits after recklessly and carelessly harming their
victims. Once a lawsuit is filed audacious lawyers and process servers claim protection.
Knowingly they can then have their way with the debtor - all in the name of collection.
7.
Plaintiff contends, because of the seemingly unlimited and perpetual financial
resources of the Association, the service providers often offer the Association self-serving
advice, and make self-serving decisions which line their own pockets financially. They
initiate fruitless, often illegal, collection and enforcement pursuits such as the relentless
collection attacks on Plaintiff Miner. Plaintiff claims his Association, its managers /
collection company, collection agents and collection attorneys, have routinely violated the
10
law and should not be rewarded financially for such acts when in the end result - the
11
Associations own members have been damaged.
12
8.
What seems to be a common thread these days in all HOAs from coast to
13
coast is that HOA attorneys routinely suggest and initiate litigation. The reason: win, lose
14
or draw they get paid, and they get paid very well. Stanley Feldsott on his website indicates
15
he was paid $60,000 on a $3,000 debt collection. [exhibit #4]
16
9.
In the illegal collection case against Miner, with the Association losing the
17
appeals, and eventually the entire lawsuit, Miner believes the Association has lost about
18
$250,000 between payments to the service providers, and payment for Miners attorney fees
19
and costs. The service providers lost nothing - they were paid in total for their bad advice
20
and illegal practices. Miner alleges they were unjustly enriched.
21
10.
On one hand Miner was damaged as a victim of an unnecessary and illegal
22
collection scheme, on the other hand Miner was damaged as member of the Association
23
who paid for the illegal collection scheme as a member of the Association. He, and the
24
other 444 members of the Association were then damaged when the Court found the
25
scheme to be illegal. Damages were the monetary payments paid to service providers who
26
failed to follow the law. In the Feldsott-Lee case - say $150,000 went to Feldsott-Lee, and
27
the $60,000 in attorney fees awarded by the Court to Miner. On information and belief -
28
$210,000 in the first foreclosure action. Additional amounts went to Cane-Walker, and
Page 4
Keystone. Exact damage figures to be obtained through discovery.
11.
These collection practices and schemes by the service providers essentially
skirt and or violate statutory protections and collection laws. Damages are generally minor
but can be significant financial losses and result in foreclosure. During these collection
attacks homeowners typically have financial dilemmas, are underfunded and can not afford
counsel. They fold to the threat of these abusive collection practices and threatened
outrageous demands in attorney fees. Fees are then forced on the homeowner by offering a
payment plan or foreclosure is filed on the financially strapped defenseless owner who
refuses.
10
12.
Management companies are not always considered debt collectors under the
11
law. Because of this they are able, and routinely and recklessly do abuse the system as they
12
have in Plaintiffs experience. Because management companies have sometimes found a
13
legal loophole; and now deliberately incorporate collections companies within the
14
management company itself as a department or division they skirt the laws enacted to
15
protect consumers. They harm and competitively disadvantage collectors who do follow the
16
law.
17
13.
In this situation however Miner alleges the management company Keystone is
18
a debt collector, and acquired Plaintiffs debt years in default. Plaintiff alleges acquiring
19
Plaintiffs debt in default classifies Keystone and its associates, and its associated
20
collection attorney, as debt collectors under the federal FDCPA. Plaintiff alleges Feldsott-
21
Lee, its associates and collection assistants are also debt collectors under the law.
22
The Congress created the FDCPA for the following purpose
23
It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt
collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt
collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent
State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.
24
25
14.
In Miners case, during the Feldsott-Lee collection, after being defaulted on a
26
lawsuit that he was never served with, and unaware of; and... even when the Association,
27
its directors and its counsel Jacqueline Pagano knew the service of process was factually
28
Page 5
impossible, Feldsott-Lee and Pagano failed to vacate the default and re-serve the complaint.
Then, when Plaintiff attempted to pay his assessment debt in full the Association and its
debt collection counsel Feldsott-Lee, Stanley Feldsott, and Jacqueline Pagano rejected full
payment of the assessment debt claiming law and restrictions that did not exist. Feldsott-
Lee had used this collection racket for years before Miner was successful in appellate
court to thwart Feldsott-Lees decades long illegal collection scheme. [exhibit #5]
15.
Feldsott-Lee rejecting Miners full assessment payments by certified funds,
which was an illegal act by Feldsott-Lee, and then taking the action through two appellate
hearings (which both successively ruled in Miners favor), while charging the Association
10
for these services win, lose or draw was not in the best interest of the Association - Miner
11
alleges it was never important to the Association to change the law; however, it was very
12
important to Feldsott-Lee and its fellow Association debt collectors. It was important to
13
Feldsott-Lee because it has been the illegal cornerstone of its own HOA collections
14
practice for decades. Plaintiff alleges Feldsott-Lee gambled with Associations money, used
15
Associations standing, to attempt to change a law that Feldsott-Lee would benefit from:
16
the goose that laid the golden egg - foreclosing on an owners residence for just $1800,
17
adding $1,000s in unearned attorney fees, and rejecting any partial payment made by an
18
owner to prevent foreclosure - a financial guillotine. This was Feldsotts illegal racket for
19
close to 20 years. It has made HOA collection attorneys rich including Stanley Feldsott.
20
16.
These acts eventually cost this Association. In the end, because of Feldsott-
21
Lees illegal acts, the Association lost, it took nothing during the four year dispute [exhibit
22
#6], and was found to have violated the Davis Stirling Act. [exhibit #7] Plaintiff alleges the
23
Associations contracted debt collector, Feldsott-Lee, and its associates and collection
24
agents, violated the law, in their pursuit of Miners debt. At the center of this illegal
25
collection effort was Jacqueline Pagano, a debt collection attorney and her debt collection
26
assistant Tyler Jones employed by Feldsott-Lee.
27
28
17.
The Keystone collection against Miner began after the Feldsott-Lee collection
trial. It ran in parallel with the Feldsott-Lee appeals. Prior to the Keystone collection,
Page 6
Feldsott-Lee acting on behalf of the Association continued to refuse Miners assessment
payments, and while refusing payment, then added late fees and interest! Miner and his
counsel both wrote letters to make payment and requested clarification but the requests
went unanswered. When Keystone took over it began its attempt to collect Miners
defaulted debt Miner refused to pay the unearned late fees and interest. Keystone demanded
this unearned fees. This forced Miner to follow the legal requirements for mediation. On
information and belief Keystone then engaged collection attorney Harkins to represent the
Association not in collection, but in mediation. No mediation took place, Harkins and
Keystone then changed the label of Harkins service from mediation fee, and cleverly
10
converted by re-labeling it to a collection fee and then pursued Miner in Small Claims
11
court.
12
18.
When Miner did not succumb to Keystones attacks, Keystone then began
13
billing Miner on his ledger for attorney consultation fees re-labeling them as collection
14
fees. No collection took place - James Harkins was never the direct collector, Keystone
15
was the collector - it was more labeling jiggery-pokery. On information and belief
16
Keystone, its agents and its collectors Erica Griffith, Brittany Bennett and Rene Barger
17
conspired with, aided and abetted attorney Harkins to harm Miner financially by charging
18
Miner and applying more than $25,000 in legal fees to his ledger generated by their own
19
Laurel and Hardy collection efforts. Harkins and Keystones racket creates two classes of
20
pro se litigants in Small Claims court - plaintiffs that can get attorney fees, and defendants
21
that can not.
22
19.
On information and belief attorney Harkins and Keystone use this same
23
collection racket throughout southern California in various homeowner Associations.
24
Miner contends the scheme is illegal and financially malicious towards homeowners and he
25
owes none of the attorney and collection fees charged to him.
26
20.
Miner contends Harkins legal theory of billing enormous sums of attorney
27
collection fees in Small Claims court to homeowners was never intended by the legislature,
28
illegal under the Davis Stirling or Small Claims Acts and not in the best interest of the
Page 7
Association. Harkins, with his devious collection scheme, financially raping defenseless
homeowners with attorney fees in Small Claims court, is just plain wrong.
21.
On information and belief, under Harkins legal guidance, Keystone then
attempted to pass on and charge Miner for these illegal attorney consulting fees
providing false and confusing monthly ledgers. When Miner filed this instant suit to
challenge the Associations Small Claims action and other collection abuses, mysteriously
the Association dismissed its Small Claims lawsuit. It refused to consolidate the cases.
Miner alleges Harkins Small Claims attorney fees racket is illegal.
22.
Feldsott-Lee, Cane-Walker, and Keystone collect their fees from Huntington,
10
from which said fees are collected from title holders (members) pursuant to declaration
11
and statute (civil code 4000- 6150). Funds are deposited into Huntingtons Operating and
12
Reserve accounts. Plaintiff, on information and belief, alleges it did not matter to the
13
service providers Feldsott-Lee, Cane-Walker, and Keystone if they actually collected from
14
Miner because when providers invoice the Association they are paid for their service
15
regardless - even if services are foolish, illegal, or unjust. Miner sues to prove the debt
16
collection efforts were illegal, unjust, and that he and his family, and as a member of the
17
445 person Association, has been damaged. Plaintiff Miner has defended himself, and has
18
been victorious in three appellate proceedings, and now sues for damages.
19
23.
Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, as a victim of unlawful collection,
20
and from the standing of a member of the Association, the service providers and collections
21
agents have continuously over the course of the last several years breached their duties to
22
Miner, been unjustly enriched, have been negligent, and have practiced self dealing
23
during the course of this dispute and have violated collection and other law alleged herein.
24
Plaintiff sues for 1) personal damages and 2) to recover all monies paid to these service
25
providers and have these monies returned to the Association to make the Association
26
whole; amounts to be proven at trial.
27
//
28
Page 8
1
2
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

24.
The location of all real property, that is the subject of this action, and the acts
complained of herein, occurred in Orange County, California and in the above captioned
Judicial Branch. The Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants because they are residents
of and / or doing business in the State of California. Venue is proper in this county in
accordance with Section 395(a) of the California code of Civil Procedure because the
Defendants, or some of them, reside in this county, the real property lies in this county, and
the injuries and / or incidents alleged herein occurred in this county.
III. PARTIES
9
10
A.
PLAINTIFF
11
25.
Plaintiff, JOSEPH A. MINER, is now, and at all times relevant to this
12
action, a natural person, adult, individual residing in the County of Orange. Plaintiff
13
is a consumer under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692a(3)
14
in that plaintiff was obligated or allegedly obligated to pay a consumer debt and
15
the services he acquires are an acquisition of services on credit.
16
26.
Plaintiffs trust, The JM Trust is an intervivos, revocable, living family
17
trust. As an intervivos trust, effectively Mr. Miner and the Trust are one in the same.
18
The Trust is not a legal entity; it can not sue or be sued. Plaintiff is the Trustee of the
19
Trust.
20
STANDING
21
Plaintiff Joseph Miner sues, and alleges causes of action, under two
22
distinctly separate legal standings:
23
A) As a victim of the Association, and its agents unlawful debt collection
24
practices and harassment, and other violations of law, and; as a result of the
25
unlawful federal and state debt collections practices, violations of the
26
Common Interest Development Act previously known as the Davis Stirling
27
Act and other alleged violations of law, and;
28
B) As a title holder and a mandated member of the Association adversely

Page 9
affected by the significant monetary losses, reckless and negligent decisions,
and actions by the HOA Board of Directors and unlawful business practices of
its collection agents. As a mandated member of the Association, he has been
damaged by the many $100,000s of dollars paid from the Associations own
HOA assessment coffers, to fund grossly negligent, unlawful, egregious,
frivolous, failed acts enriching the service providers who failed to follow the
law and were reckless and wasteful with Association funds.
27.
Plaintiff sues as a victim of the alleged violations herein and separately
as a mandated HOA Association member to recover, and force these service
10
providers to repay the monies they have charged and been paid by the Association
11
for their foolish, futile, wasteful, illegal acts, and breach of duty to the Association.
12
B.
DEFENDANTS
13
28.
Defendant Group #1, (hereinafter HUNTINGTON
14
DEFENDANTS) consists of Huntington Continental Town Home Association,
15
Inc, Rustan P. Laine, its president, and Myra J. Kuck, its treasurer.
16
29.
Defendant 1: HUNTINGTON CONTINENTAL TOWN HOUSE
17
ASSOCIATION, INC. (hereinafter HUNTINGTON or the Association) is, and at all
18
times relevant to this action was a non-profit mutual benefit corporation; California
19
Corporate Entity number - C0452014, believed to be organized under the laws of
20
California, with its principal place of business in Huntington Beach, California. At all times
21
mentioned herein, defendant Huntington was a party to debt collection activities of its
22
agents within County of Orange.
23
30.
Defendant 2: RUSTAN P. LAINE (hereinafter LAINE) is, and at all
24
relevant times mentioned was a Board member and the President of HUNTINGTON.
25
Plaintiff contends that Laine is a senior, long term member of the Board, and therefore
26
contributes to the controlling decision-making actions of the Board, and resides at the
27
Huntington Continental community, in Huntington Beach, CA.
28
31.
Defendant 3: MYRA J. KUCK (hereinafter KUCK) is, and at all relevant

Page 10
times mentioned was the Treasurer, and a Board member of HUNTINGTON. Plaintiff
contends that Kuck is a senior, long term member of the Board, and therefore contributes to
the controlling decision-making actions of the Board and its financial decisions, and
resides at the Huntington Continental community, in Huntington Beach, CA.
32.
Defendant Group #2, (hereinafter FELDSOTT DEFENDANTS) consists
of Feldsott and Lee, a law firm, Stanley S. Feldsott is the principle collection attorney,
Jacqueline P. Pagano a collection attorney, and Tyler J. Jones a collections assistant.
Feldsott advertises a variety of collection services on its website.
33.
Defendant 4: FELDSOTT & LEE, A LAW CORPORATION, (hereinafter
10
FELDSOTT-LEE) California Corporate Entity number - C0745288 is a professional
11
corporation that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business
12
the principal business of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or
13
attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due
14
another and is therefore a debt collector as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C.
15
1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a law
16
firm doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 23161 Mill
17
Creek Dr Ste 300 Laguna Hills, CA 92653
18
34.
Defendant 5: STANLEY S. FELDSOTT (hereinafter FELDSOTT) is a
19
licensed attorney employed by FELDSOTT-LEE in the debt collection business that uses
20
and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal business
21
of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly
22
or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another and is therefore a
23
debt collector as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed,
24
believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a licensed attorney SBN 45128 and
25
debt collector doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 23161
26
Mill Creek Dr Ste 300 Laguna Hills, CA 92653
27
28
35.
Defendant 6: JACQUELINE P. PAGANO (hereinafter PAGANO) is a
licensed attorney employed by FELDSOTT-LEE in the debt collection business that uses
Page 11
and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal business
of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly
or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another and is therefore a
debt collector as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed,
believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a licensed attorney SBN 266283 and
debt collector doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 23161
Mill Creek Dr Ste 300 Laguna Hills, CA 92653
8
9
36.
Defendant 7: TYLER J. JONES (hereinafter JONES) is a collections
assistant, employed by FELDSOTT-LEE in the debt collection business, that uses and
10
instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal business of
11
which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or
12
indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another and is therefore a debt
13
collector as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes,
14
and based thereon alleges that defendant is a debt collector doing business in the State of
15
California, County of Orange, located at 23161 Mill Creek Dr Ste 300 Laguna Hills, CA
16
92653
17
37.
Defendant Group #3, (hereinafter KEYSTONE DEFENDANTS)
18
consists of Keystone Pacific Property Management, Inc, Cary S. Treff its CEO, Erica L.
19
Griffith a collection assistant / manager, Brittany Bennett a collection assistant, Rene M.
20
Barger a collection assistant / manager, Cane Walker Harkins LLP a collection attorney
21
firm, and James C. Harkins a collection attorney.
22
38.
Defendant 8: KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,
23
INC., (hereinafter KEYSTONE) California Corporate Entity number - C1322177 is a
24
corporation that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business
25
26
27
28
1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a debt
Page 12
collector doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 16775 Von
Karman Ste. 100, Irvine CA 92606. Keystone advertises a variety of debt collection
services on its website.
39.
Defendant 9: CARY S. TREFF (hereinafter TREFF) is President and
Chief Operating Officer of KEYSTONE, a corporation that routinely deals with debt
collection, that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business
10
11
12
Karman Ste. 100, Irvine CA 92606.
13
40.
Defendant 10: ERICA L. GRIFFITH (hereinafter GRIFFITH) is a
14
manager, employed by KEYSTONE, a corporation that routinely deals with debt
15
collection, that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
41.
Defendant 11: BRITTANY BENNETT (hereinafter BENNETT) is a
23
collections assistant, , employed by KEYSTONE, a corporation that routinely deals with
24
debt collection, that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a
25
business the principal business of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects
26
or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or
27
due another and is therefore a debt collector as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C.
28
Page 13
42.
Defendant 12: RENEE M. BARGER (hereinafter BARGER) is a
collections assistant, employed by KEYSTONE, a corporation that routinely deals with
debt collection, that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a
business the principal business of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects
or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or
due another and is therefore a debt collector as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C.
10
11
12
43.
Defendant 13: CANE, WALKER & HARKINS LLP (hereinafter CANE-
13
WALKER) California LLP is a professional limited liability company that uses and
14
instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal business of
15
which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or
16
indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another and is therefore a debt
17
collector as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes,
18
and based thereon alleges that Defendant is a law firm doing business in the State of
19
California, County of Orange, located at 17821 E 17th Ste. 140. Tustin, CA.
20
44.
Defendant 14: JAMES C. HARKINS (hereinafter HARKINS) is a
21
licensed attorney, a partner, and employed by CANE-WALKER in the debt collection
22
business that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the
23
principal business of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts
24
to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another
25
and is therefore a debt collector as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6).
26
Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a licensed
27
attorney SBN 152564 and debt collector doing business in the State of California, County
28
of Orange, County of Orange, located at 17821 E 17th Ste. 140. Tustin, CA.
Page 14
45.
Defendant Group #4, (hereinafter SERVER DEFENDANTS) consists of
Arturo P. Chayra, a registered process server, Diann G. Robertson, a registered process
server, and Richard S. Barr, a licensed private investigator who served process or runs a
process serving and private investigation company.
46.
Defendant 15: ARTURO P. CHAYRA (dismissed).
47.
Defendant 16: DIANN G. ROBERTSON (dismissed).
48.
Defendant 17: RICHARD S. BARR (dismissed).
49.
The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
otherwise, of Defendants DOES 10 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are unknown
10
to Plaintiff at this time, and Plaintiff therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious
11
names. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times alleged
12
in this Complaint, Defendants DOES 10 through 50, inclusive, are natural persons, limited
13
liability companies, corporations or business entities of unknown form that have or are
14
doing business in the state of California. Plaintiff will seek leave of the Court to replace the
15
fictitious names of these Doe Defendants with their true names when they are discovered
16
by Plaintiff.
17
50.
At all relevant times alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them,
18
were regularly engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts throughout the state of
19
California, including Orange County, by assisting the other debt collectors file and maintain
20
civil debt collection lawsuits by utilizing the U.S. Mail, telephone and Internet.
21
51.
Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges, that each and all of the
22
aforementioned Defendants are responsible in some manner, either by act or omission,
23
strict liability, fraud, deceit, fraudulent concealment, negligence, respondeat superior,
24
breach of contract or otherwise, for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiffs
25
injuries, as herein alleged, were proximately caused by the conduct of Defendants.
26
52.
Plaintiff is informed, believes and therefore alleges, that at all relevant times
27
alleged in this Complaint, each of the Defendants sued herein was the agent, servant,
28
employer, joint venturer, partner, division, owner, subsidiary, alias, assignee and/or
Page 15
alter-ego of each of the remaining Defendants and was at all times acting within the
purpose and scope of such agency, servitude, joint venture, division, ownership, subsidiary,
alias, alter-ego, partnership or employment and with the authority, consent, approval and
ratification of each remaining Defendant.
53. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of any corporate or
other business Defendant, that reference shall mean that the corporation or other business
did the acts alleged in this Complaint through its officers, directors, employees, agents
and/or representatives while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their
authority.
10
54.
At all relevant times alleged in this Complaint, each Defendant has
11
committed the acts, caused others to commit the acts, ratified the commission of the acts, or
12
permitted others to commit the acts alleged in this Complaint and has made, caused,
13
ratified, or permitted others to make, the untrue or misleading statements alleged in this
14
Complaint. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of Defendants, such
15
allegation shall mean that each Defendant acted individually and jointly with the other
16
Defendants.
17
55.
At all relevant times alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them,
18
were regularly engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts throughout the state of
19
California, including Orange County, by assisting the other debt collectors file and maintain
20
civil debt collection lawsuits and to obtain default judgments in those cases by utilizing the
21
U.S. Mail, telephone and Internet.
22
56.
Defendants regularly collects, directly or indirectly, consumer debts alleged to
23
be due to another via U.S. Mail, telephone, internet, and civil debt collection lawsuits.
24
Defendants are debt collectors within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6) and Cal. Civil
25
Code 1788.2C. Defendant group four, the process servers, are not subject to the exception
26
of 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6)(D).
27
28
57.
Defendants, and each of them, were all party to a common enterprise giving
rise to this action within which they conducted themselves as the employees, employers,
Page 16
agents, sub-agents, servants or sub-servants of one another.
2
3
4
IV. SUBJECT MATTER

58.
All events which are the subject matter of the action concern real property
located at the physical address of 19771 Inverness Lane, Huntington Beach, CA. The
property lies within the Huntington Continental Town House Association, a common
interest development, is subject to its governing documents, as well as California common
interest development law known as the Davis Stirling Act. In the instant action both State
and Federal collection law apply.
10
11
12
V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
59.
Allegations in this Complaint are based upon information and belief except
13
for those allegations which pertain to Plaintiff Joseph Miner. Miners information and
14
belief is based upon the investigation conducted to date by Miner. Each allegation in this
15
Complaint either has evidentiary support or is likely to have evidentiary support or is likely
16
to have support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery.
17
60.
Joseph Miner through his intervivos trust, the JM Trust, owns an attached
18
single family home located in the Huntington Continental Town Home Association, Inc.,
19
Huntington Beach, CA (Huntington). The property, Miners retirement home, a
20
condominium-like, single story attached structure. The condo was acquired by Miner and
21
his family in the late 1990s as consumers. Miner lived at the property for a few years until
22
2003 when he purchased a different residence. Since about 2003 the property has been
23
rented to mostly the same tenant. Miner inherited the property in total when his parents
24
passed on. Miner pays the HOA dues. Miner plans to return and live there one day.
25
61.
On information and belief Huntington was self managed prior to a
26
professional property manager being hired. At some point in the early 2000s Action
27
Property Management, Inc. (Action) took over the management of Huntington. Things
28
started to change at Huntington about the time Miner's tenants moved in. Violation letters
Page 17
started to be sent out with fines. Miner had requested notices be sent to both addresses.
This was so he would be assured that his tenants and he would receive proper notice of any
important documents and Huntington's demands. Action replied by starting to send
documents to both addresses as the law requires. At some point the delivery to both
addresses stopped. Miner, to no avail, made many requests in writing to receive notification
as required by law. Miner had conversations with the management. The management was
aware Miner did not live at the property. The management company failed to properly
notice Miner as required by law.
62.
When the real estate depression hit about 2007 the trickle down problems that
10
were affecting everyone became significant issues for Miner. Many of Miner's tenants lost
11
their jobs and failed to pay rent. As the depression progressed things worsened and because
12
of so many people failing to pay him, Miner got behind on his own bills. Several of his
13
properties fell into foreclosure and he was behind in most of his bills including the HOA
14
assessment dues at Huntington.
15
16
17
THE FELDSOTT DEBT COLLECTION

63.
During this time period times were tough. Foreclosures were everywhere, real
18
estate loans had become difficult to secure and owners were losing their homes across the
19
nation. About April of 2011 Miner received a notice, at his office, from Huntington's
20
lawyer Feldsott and Lee (Feldsott-Lee) that if Miner did not pay his assessment dues they
21
would initiate a lawsuit and start foreclose proceedings on his property.
22
23
24
64.
Miner believed he could come up with the funds to pay the bill in a few large
monthly payments.
65.
Still coping with the financial crisis, and not wanting to be sued, Miner read
25
the letter and contacted a person named Tyler Jones (Jones) via an email address on the
26
letter. Mr. Jones, as it turned out, was collection attorney Jacqueline Pagano's (Pagano)
27
collection assistant at Feldsott-Lee, an HOA collection law firm. Pagano was Feldsotts
28
instumentality.
Page 18
66.
The letter addressed to Miner stated that if he did not pay his account
Feldsott-Lee would start foreclosure proceedings. Miner sent Jones an email stating that he
was contacting them about 19771 Inverness Lane, Huntington Beach, and that they did not
need to foreclose or start proceedings - that he could pay his bill. Jones responded,
mentioned nothing about Miner being served with a law suit, and asked Miner how much
he could pay. Miner being polite answering his question via email stated he could make
significant payments. Miner indicated perhaps $2000 for the initial payment and then to get
the assessments paid off quickly. Miner requested line item accounting from Jones.
67.
Miner had several short emails with Tyler Jones. Never did Jones state one
10
single time that Miner had been sued, one thing that he did state was - Feldsott-Lee was
11
the company Miner would pay the attorney fees to.
12
68.
Miner sent Huntington and its management company (Action at that time) a
13
simple letter stating that the Association did not need to foreclose, that he was willing to
14
make payments and pay off debt quickly. Miner enclosed a $2,000 good faith personal
15
payment check directly payable to the Association. Enclosed with payment, Miner in his
16
letter, stated he would make successive payments. Miner then made additional payments of
17
$1,000 and $500 by personal check. Miner, when he believed he was near to the paying
18
debt off started asking for his accounting again so he could pay his Association debt in full
19
in one check. All checks sent were cashed. None of Miners payments were applied to his
20
Assessments as required by law.
21
69.
Monthly invoices, as required by the Declaration (CC&Rs) were not being
22
sent to either of Miners addresses; the office or the property at 19771 Inverness Lane
23
owned by Miner that is located in the Association. Miner had problems with Action
24
Management sending invoices to any address, let alone both addresses. Miner was
25
prevented from paying off his assessment debt in full because he was not receiving invoices
26
from the Association and therefore did not know what he owed.
27
28
70.
While Miner had received some requested amounts during the payment
process, they were no longer up to date and Miner questioned the veracity of the invoices
Page 19
sent to him. Miner repeatedly requested regular line-item accounting. As a real estate
professional he wanted to see where his payments were going and what exactly was being
charged. He contacted Action Management and the Association by mail and requested
accounting. He heard nothing in return.
71.
Finally Miner called Action Management via the telephone and asked to get
a copy of his accounting - they literally hung up the phone on him. Miner thought this to be
very bizarre behavior so he wrote the HOA Board of Directors asking for an up-to-date
accounting so he could pay his bill in full. He heard nothing back from the HOA Board of
Directors, or Action Management Company. He wrote the Board several times. Some of
10
Miner letters to the HOA Board Directors were returned to Miner in the mail as
11
REFUSED written on the envelopes. There was no response from the HOA Board.
12
72.
For a while Miner stopped making payments because no one would send him
13
any detailed accounting, or send invoices. He thought this would get their attention.
14
Finally, with plenty of money in the bank to pay his bill in full, wanting to pay off
15
assessment debt in full, Miner wrote checks for his monthly $188 dues and sent them to the
16
Association. Miner enclosed a letter stating paraphrased if you won't send me my
17
accounting I must not owe anything other than my monthly assessment dues.
18
73.
Miner, at his office, received a brief letter from Jones at Feldsott-Lee telling
19
him that they would not accept partial payments. His most recent checks were returned.
20
What a partial payment was - was never explained. Miner had full intention of paying all
21
his regular assessments due and just wanted a number for that assessment amount that was
22
owed. No one would send him an itemized statement of charges: not the Association, not
23
the management company, not the attorney. The letters Miner did receive from Feldsott-
24
Lee, Pagano, and Jones were confusing, and the amounts indicated due were inaccurate.
25
Miner, at some point, noted his payments were not being applied to his assessments.
26
27
28
74.
Because Miner could get no substantive response he pushed the Huntington
issue aside waiting for the line-item accounting to pay off his assessment bill in full.
75.
In early December 2011 Miner, at his office, received notice from the
Page 20
Superior Court that he had been defaulted in a foreclosure lawsuit regarding the property at
Huntington. Miner was in shock. He was confused because he was never served with a
Complaint, nor did he ever know that a lawsuit regarding the property had been filed.
76.
Miner called Feldsott-Lee attorney Pagano who was listed in the paperwork.
He had never been contacted by her, had never spoken with her, and he had never received
a single document from her or anyone stating he had been served with a lawsuit.
77.
Miner spoke with Pagano directly and asked her what the default was about.
She informed him that he had been served with a lawsuit at his property back in April 2011,
eight months prior. Miner informed her he had not been served with a lawsuit. He also
10
informed her he had not lived at the property for eight years. He also stated that he had not
11
been to or seen the property for several years. He informed Ms. Pagano he did not know of
12
any legal action.
13
78.
Miner asked that Pagano vacate the default, she refused. Rather than be
14
reasonable Pagano then added Miner to the complaint on a personal basis a few days later.
15
Her act eventually forced Miner to pay a double filing fee to respond to the complaint.
16
79.
Miner researched the process server who claimed to have served Miner at the
17
Condo. His name was Arturo Chayra (Chayra). According to a well known process serving
18
company Chayra was well known for such bad acts - sewer service. Miner had found that
19
others had lost their homes and their rentals because Mr. Chayra failed to notice them. He
20
signed and filed false documents. Miner discovered that Chayra had been sued previously
21
for the exact same issue, false proof of service, commonly called in the process server
22
industry as sewer service.
23
80.
The Association, and Action Management knew or should have known and
24
were also well aware that Miner had not resided at the property for almost a decade and had
25
tenants in the property. Miner alleges the party who gave Chayra the process server, the
26
19771 Inverness address (Condo) for service of process was negligent. Unbeknownst to
27
Miner the false service at that address started the wheels of foreclosure in motion.
28
81.
Later, in December, in an email from Rustan Laine (Laine), the President of

Page 21
Huntington, Laine confessed the Association knew Miner was not properly served. Nothing
was done by Defendants about the false service of process. The Association knew the proof
of service on Miner was fraudulent. Neither Feldsott-Lee, Pagano, Jones or the Association,
attempted to correct the false proof of service, or dismiss the default.
82.
In the meantime Miner had done everything possible to get his accounting so
he could make full payment. He had the money, he made the effort, he specifically wrote
the Board of Directors many letters, he wrote and telephoned Action Property Management.
Until he received his checks back from Feldsott-Lees collection assistant Jones, he had not
heard from them after his initial letter back in April 2011.
10
83.
In an effort to figure this out Miner researched the laws that governed these
11
issues, the Davis Stirling Act, and read the Civil Code about making payments as well as
12
the CC&Rs. The law was clear the Association had to apply his assessment payments to his
13
account. That was the law. Invoices were required to be sent monthly pursuant to the
14
governing documents, but invoices never came. Feldsott-Lee never sent a single monthly
15
invoice while the account was in their possession.
16
84.
Miner, now desperate to resolve the issue, having made every reasonable
17
attempt possible to rectify the situation. Miner located some very old accounting and
18
attempted to calculate what he believed he owed in full. In late December 2011 Miner sent
19
a certified check directly to the President of the Association Laine in the amount of $3,500
20
to pay off what he calculated as his unpaid assessment dues in full plus an overage. Laine,
21
the President of the Association, sent Miner a confirmation email stating he received and
22
accepted the check. Laine, in the email, stated he would tell Feldsott-Lee to update Miner's
23
account, and send accounting.
24
85.
Miner wanted to make certain the Board of Directors and the President knew
25
what was going on with the agents they had hired for the Association, and how he was
26
being treated while making every attempt to bring his account current. Miner sent them
27
many letters to update them on how the Associations agents were handling the matter.
28
Miner noted a certain board member, Myra Kuck, would constantly refuse his letters and
Page 22
1
2
send them back to him unopened.

86.
About a week later after sending full payment to Rustan Laine, Miner
received a letter in the mail from Feldsott at his office. In the letter was his $3,500 certified
check uncashed and a letter stating the Association could not accept partial payments - no
explanation. Miner, confused, sent the check back to Feldsott explaining the President of
the Association had accepted his check with a conformation email, and they had a duty to
apply it against his assessments. Again, a second time the check was returned to Miner in
the mail. Miner still had not received his line item accounting.
87.
Fed up, in 2012 Miner sued the Association in Small Claims court for his
10
accounting and other records as the law allows. In or about March of 2012 Action, as
11
manager for Huntington, attended the Small Claims hearing. At the hearing Liza Salinas,
12
the then community manager, finally supplied Miner with his itemized accounting charges
13
including the Feldsott-Lee collection contract with the Association. Jones, Pagano's
14
assistant, also attended the Small Claims court hearing. While in the hallway of the
15
courthouse Jones personally served Miner with the complaint for foreclosure. Miner was
16
served with the foreclosure complaint about 11 months after it was filed, and after he
17
attempted to pay his assessment debt in full! Miner was served with the complaint for
18
foreclosure three months after writing and delivering a check for full payment of all regular
19
assessments past due, that by law, should have been applied to his regular assessment debt.
20
88.
Miner, who was in pro per at the time, was at a disadvantage. Pagano, the
21
collection attorney, had never vacated the Associations fraudulent default judgment
22
against Miner (served by Chayra). Miner, in pro per, filed an answer to complaint the best
23
he could. He was served with and answered the Association's discovery.
24
89.
Even though he was having severe heart problems he attempted to mitigate
25
his losses by attending a board meeting and personally handing a settlement letter to Laine,
26
and all other members of the Board. He spoke at the meeting telling them how ridiculous
27
the refusal of his full assessment payments were and that he had made payment in full.
28
There was no reply to his settlement / mitigation letter by the Association. Miner, at that
Page 23
time, did not realize the refusal of his assessment payments was against the law. He has
paid close to $4,000 dollars that had been rejected by Feldsott-lee, Pagano and Jones.
90.
Exhausted from the significant and cumulative efforts made to pay his
assessments in full, angry at the treatment he received, Miner answered the original
complaint, then just before trial hired attorney Sam Walker for his defense.
91.
At that point it was too late to compose and file a cross complaint. Preventing
the foreclosure was most important. Miner had just wanted to do the right thing for months
and was literally stonewalled from paying his assessment payments by the Association and
its agents. Miner knew the assessment payments were important to the Association. He
10
believed the Board of Directors, negligence, poor judgment, and Huntingtons agents'
11
negligent or intentional acts hurt the homeowners as well as Miner.
12
92.
Because of Miners document request, Miner was able to read Feldsott's
13
collection contract with the Association; it did not appear to be within the law. At that point
14
Miner realized what was going on and he noted a significant problem. While the law states
15
that any payment made shall be applied to assessments first, Feldsott was putting Miners
16
money in a trust fund and some in the firms pocket. Feldsott's contract clearly allowed it to
17
pay itself first, rather than last as the law requires. Further research was uncovered that this
18
may had been their practice for more than fifteen years. Hundreds of homeowners may have
19
lost their homes due to these unlawful foreclosure practices of this collector.
20
93.
Miner knew that it would be the homeowners who may end up paying for the
21
actions of the Board and he did everything possible to avoid that. Miner believed the Board,
22
or at least those who voted to approve Feldsott's contract, had breached their fiduciary duty,
23
were grossly negligent, or were at least negligent. The contract was clearly illegal. On
24
information and belief Stanley Feldsott authored and delivered to the Association with a
25
contract for collection and HOA home foreclosure that was against the law. It was Rustan
26
Laine, President of the Board of Directors, who signed the contract along with Stanley
27
Feldsott of Feldsott-Lee.
28
94.
A limited civil trial was conducted in September 2012. Feldsott-Lee, Pagano,

Page 24
and Jones had rejected and returned Miners payments. During the months it took to get to
trial Feldsott-Lee, Pagano, and Jones continued to refuse payment. During this time
Miners assessment account swelled.
95.
At trial it came out that Feldsott-Lees collection assistant Jones, who had no
accounting background, was managing Miners account doing some mysterious accounting.
Jones was not applying Miner's substantial payments to his assessment account as the law
required. Rather then applying payments to assessments, Jones was holding Miners monies
in an unknown trust fund. The accounting, at best, was improper, at worst perhaps
fraudulent. Not applying Miners assessment payments to his debt was a clear violation of
10
the Davis Stirling Act. Jones, a law firm collection assistant with no accounting
11
background, was tasked with the accounting duties. Jones could not explain to the Court
12
what exactly he was doing with Miner's funds. He could not explain his personal
13
unprofessional accounting methods. Feldsott-Lee and Jones lost a $500 payment made by
14
Miners that in court Miner had proved he made. Jones accounting at Feldsott-Lee proved
15
to be erroneous, confusing and perhaps fraudulent.
16
96.
During Miner's research he noted there were a litany of legal, notice, and
17
procedural issues, required by law, the Association's agents were not following. He
18
believed the Notice of Delinquent Assessments (Association calls it a pre-lien notice) was
19
not proper, that the lien recorded was not proper, notifications to Miner were not proper,
20
the Association failed to send Miner monthly invoices as required by the Declaration, it
21
failed to send all collection notices to both addresses, both primary and secondary. The
22
Association along with Feldsott-Lee, Pagano, and Jones failed to accept assessment
23
payments and failed to apply accepted payment to his assessment balance. These actions, or
24
inactions, were all improper and in violation of law.
25
97.
Judge Galivan (deceased) was the presiding Judge in trial court. Miners
26
attorney had only arrived from out of town the day before; there was not much time to
27
prepare. The trial was short. Judge Galivan eventually ruled against Miner, with no
28
statement of decision.
Page 25
98.
Miner appealed. The Orange County Superior Court appellate division came
back and ruled for Miner 3-0 and reversed the judgment, then published the decision. The
decision set the law straight for nine million homeowners who live in a community
Associations in that any payment made shall be applied to assessments; Associations are
compelled to accept payment.
99.
Huntington (or its attorneys Feldsott-Lee), not happy with Miner's very
favorable ruling, that changed the way HOA collection attorneys do business, then spent a
significant amount of the homeowners assessment funds. Stanley Feldsott signed the
document that appealed the case to the Fourth District where the case is currently on
10
appeal. The homeowners at Huntington Continental had no reason whatsoever to spend
11
additional homeowner funds on this legal battle.
12
100.
Miner contends the real person who would benefit was Stanley Feldsott, his
13
collection firm Feldsott-Lee, his collection attorneys Jacqueline Pagano and Maria Kao and
14
the Association he founded CAI - who most, if not all, HOA collections attorney belong to
15
throughout the Sate of California.
16
101.
On information and belief Miner therefore alleges it was Stanley Feldsott
17
who gained the most benefit, using the standing of the Association, the Associations funds,
18
to attempt to change a law he had violated for close to two decades. Miner estimates,
19
Stanley Feldsotts law firm Feldsott-Lee collected $150,000 of the Associations funds,
20
while paying his own law firm Feldsott-Lee to fight a legal battle that benefitted him and
21
his firm the most.
22
102.
Miner alleges Feldsott-Lee, Feldsott, Pagano, and Jones not only violated the
23
Davis Stirling Act and collection law in its pursuit of Miner, but violated their duty to the
24
Association.
25
103.
Following the trial Miner's attorney Sam Walker wrote Ms. Pagano, the
26
Associations attorney controlling Miners file, a letter telling her that Miner was going to
27
appeal the decision and that Miner was willing to pay his past assessments, and again begin
28
paying his regular assessments monthly. [exhibit#8] There was no response from Feldsott,
Page 26
1
2
Pagano, Action, or the Association. Radio silence from all parties.

104.
The Court trial was September 20, 2012 in Orange County Superior Court
(30-2011-00466754). Miner appealed to Superior Court Appellate Division (2013-
30-2013-00623099). The Appellate Division ruled on September 26, 2013 in Miners
favor. Feldsott asked for a rehearing on October 11, 2013, a second ruling was on January
13, 2013, again in Miners favor. Stanley Feldsott, in the name of Huntington, then
requested the case be transferred to the Fourth District Division Three on January 22, 2014,
and filed a briefing request on February 13, 2014. On October 14, 2014 the Fourth District
Division Three (G049624) ruled in Miners favor and reversed the foreclosure. The Court
10
remitted the remaining Counts to the Superior Court. On May 12, 2015 Miner was found to
11
be the prevailing party by the Superior Court on all counts. The Association took nothing in
12
the action on any count or cause of action against Miner.
13
105.
The only person on trial was Miner. The gravamen of the trial was illegal
14
foreclosure on Miners property, whether rejecting payments was legal, what amounts of
15
money Miner had paid and when. There were no charges or causes of action litigated
16
against the Association or its service providers during the trial or appeals.
17
18
19
THE KEYSTONE COLLECTION

106.
Miner, worried about payments during the appeal period, not hearing
20
anything from the Association, wrote his own letter on May 1, 2013 to Action Property
21
Management (still known to Miner as the property manager at that time) asking about
22
making payments once again. Again, there was no reply. It had been so long, Miner could
23
not remember the last time he received any correspondence, invoices or demands of any
24
kind from the Association or its agents.
25
107.
On or about June 1, 2013 Miner received an invoice (collection notice) from
26
the Association sent by a new property management company / collection agent: Keystone
27
Pacific Property Management (Keystone). The notice came to Miner's office but was not
28
sent to his primary property address at the Condo. Miner contacted his tenant, Judith
Page 27
Spiritos, and asked if she had received anything in the mail for him, she said no. In the prior
Court trial Spirtos, under oath, testified she was never served with the foreclosure
complaint, never received the complaint in the mail, and does not, and has not received
monthly invoices. She stated she receives nothing.
108.
After receiving the new collection invoice from the new management
company, Miner contacted his attorney and asked if he had ever heard from Pagano about
making payments. The attorney said no, he received nothing. Miner asked what to do about
the invoice. Miner stated it was inaccurate. Besides the assessments that were in default, it
was for $80 in late fees and about $40 in interest Miner stated he did not owe.
10
109.
A discussion ensued. Miner decided to hold off on payment because the
11
appellate decision was due soon. Miner had never been given authority to again start
12
making payments by the Association's attorney Pagano (Pagano and Jones had refused all
13
prior payments). Miners attorney stated there should be a set off for any amounts owed
14
by the substantial amount Miner had paid in legal fees and costs. Coincidentally the first
15
collection invoice Miner received from the new management company Keystone was again
16
about the level needed for foreclosure: $1800. Again it was confusing to Miner. Miners
17
debt to this Association was years in default. It was further in default at least 8 months after
18
trial. The situation was in limbo. The documents from Keystone explained nothing.
19
Feldsott had sent no explanation. The situation was confusing.
20
110.
Miner waited to make payment as instructed by his attorney. In the meantime
21
he received a generic collection letter about the amount of assessments owed post trial.
22
This letter, a form dunning letter, was not addressed to Miner personally and it did not
23
address the intense situation that had played out. It was sent by Bennett at Keystone.
24
111.
About August 6, 2013 Miner again concerned that 60 days had passed since
25
he had started receiving collection invoices, sent a letter to Keystone, the new manager, for
26
clarification. He again asked for the Associations attorney to address the situation and get
27
a proper authorization on record about Miner again making payments. Again, there was no
28
reply to Miners request from the new management company, the Association or its
Page 28
1
2
attorney.
112.
On August 16, 2014 or thereabout the Association replied through Keystone.
The reply was a new Notice of Delinquent Assessment (pre-lien notice) again with intent to
foreclose. Three letters had been written to address the payment issue. The Association
failed (refused) to respond to every letter.
113.
Keystone, the new management company for the Association, was again
sending un-itemized invoices with summarized totals and amounts that do not give a person
the facts to figure out what exact charges, dates, fees, interest, and late fees that they would
owe to the Association. Their collection letters were confusing.
10
114.
Pursuant to the Davis Stirling Act the Association is required by law to send a
11
required legal Notice of Delinquent Assessment (Keystone calls it a pre-lien notice), and an
12
Itemized Statement of Charges together to complete the legal requirements of the notice.
13
The management company sent a three page document, what they call a pre-lien notice (a
14
term not found in the Davis Stirling Act 2013), with summary totals of different categories
15
of assessments and fees. Miner contends the notice was statutorily void.
16
115.
Miner alleges Keystone is a debt collector under Federal law because his
17
account was years in default when they took it over and began collecting. Keystone failed
18
to follow federal law. On information and belief Brittany Bennett (Bennett) was in charge
19
of Miners collection file.
20
116.
To protect himself legally Miner properly disputed the charges on the Notice
21
of Delinquent Assessment (pre-lien notice). In writing, to make the Association aware he
22
had every intention of paying what was legally due, which included all assessments, he
23
included that statement on his letter. Miner never once disputed he owed assessments.
24
Miner in his letter, as the law states, requested mediation and alternate dispute resolution
25
and was required to do so to protect himself because the Association stated it would file a
26
lien and foreclose on his property. Miner had not yet received the decision from the first
27
trials appeal.
28
117.
Miner was troubled. Not only had the Association lump sum billed Miner
Page 29
for about 9 months unpaid assessments, on his account, after repeatedly refusing payments,
failing to respond to all letters, failing to send invoices; someone then added late fees and
interest! It added these amounts for the time period: 1) while the Association was refusing
his payments and 2) would not respond to his or his attorneys correspondence about
making payments! Miner believed this to be illegal.
118.
Mediation was then set and Miner was to meet a member of the Board he had
never met. Miner welcomed that as perhaps this person would be reasonable,
knowledgeable, and understanding. Just prior to the meeting Erica Griffith (Griffith), the
Association manager appointed by Keystone contacted Miner and notified him there would
10
be a change of plans. Miner was notified that Myra Kuck (Kuck), and Humberto Macias
11
would be meeting with Miner. Miner attended a meeting with Kuck and Macias at Polly's
12
Pies in Huntington Beach close to the Association complex.
13
119.
Miner was jubilant as the appeal ruling had just come in from the Orange
14
County Appellate Court Division. A three judge panel had just ruled 3-0 in Miner's favor,
15
and reversed the trial Court ruling in total. Miner reserved a table and waited for Kuck and
16
Macias, the two Board members. The members showed up and the meeting began. Miner
17
knew that it was Kuck, who was one of the board members who voted to foreclose on
18
Miner's property; Kuck would also refuse his personal letters about the important issues
19
concerning the Associations agents. Miner had heard from a long time resident at a board
20
meeting that Kuck was impossible to deal with.
21
120.
Miner introduced himself. A conversation began. Miner discovered in no
22
time the meeting would be fruitless. He soon discovered Macias had NEVER read the
23
CC&Rs as long as he had been a board member. Kuck stated she had read them but was no
24
longer familiar. Miner had asked the Board members if he could record the meeting. They
25
allowed the recording.
26
121.
Miner attempted to inform the Board members how much money they were
27
wasting of the homeowners money on legal issues, and the fact that he had just won the
28
appeal, both of them stated they did not know much about it! At one point Kuck was
Page 30
laughing at Miner. It was clear to Miner Kuck did not understand the gravity of the
situation. No payment plan was offered by the board. Miner informed the board that he did
not get invoices to either his office or his condo. Kuck responded - all Kuck knew was she
received her invoices. It was apparent to Miner these Board members were incompetent and
uninformed. They did not know about the appeal, had not even read the CC&Rs that govern
their Board decisions.
122.
Miner does not believe the board mediated in good faith. They should have
seen the issues loud and clear. Miner concluded that with their complete lack of knowledge
they should not be running a $90,000 a month non-profit and they had no obvious concern
10
about how much money, belonging to the owners, was being wasted in litigation. It
11
appeared to Miner they did not know enough about the issues they were making decisions
12
about to be decision makers. Miner, at the end of the meeting, offered the Board members a
13
certified funds check for $780 at the meeting as a good faith payment. Myra Kuck rejected
14
Miners check.
15
123.
When Griffith, the community manager, informed Miner that Kuck would
16
replace the other board member at the meeting Miner had no idea of the history of these
17
two associates. Later, at a board meeting, Miner attended he was warned by a long term
18
owner, of Griffith's history at Huntington. Miner was informed that Griffith and Kuck are
19
personal friends (Miner was able to confirm they were Facebook friends).
20
124.
This owner informed Miner that many years ago Griffith worked with an
21
individual named Robert Kirschner who was a Board member at Huntington Continental.
22
Miner was told that Kirschner was a very bad guy. It was relayed to Miner that Griffith was
23
his right hand helper and effectively his hench-woman.
24
125.
It was also revealed to Miner that Griffith was ejected from the Huntington
25
Continental by the owners over a management scandal. Griffith and Kuck had become
26
friends. Miner was informed the situation was so bad the California Attorney General was
27
involved in Griffiths departure, but Miner has not confirmed this. Miner was warned these
28
two may be trouble if they chose to target him.

Page 31
126.
Starting October 2013, Miner was paying his assessments on time now every
month. Part of the past assessment debt was unpaid, but the Association refused to budge
on the unwarranted illegal late fees and interest. The Association, through Keystone, added
notice fees and lien fees and then placed a new lien on Miners real property in November
2013.
127.
Miner requested ADR and in early December 2013 stated he was ready to
complete ADR. Miner informed Bennett, of Keystones collection department, via email.
On or about December 3, 2013 Brittany Bennett directed Miner to email James Harkins
Esq. (Harkins) to complete Alternate Dispute Resolution. Miner had hoped that an
10
independent mediator would sit and discuss the issues between him and a couple of Board
11
members. Instead, the Board engaged James Harkins, Esq. as the boards representative for
12
mediation. It is unknown who suggested Harkins - rather than have a simple meeting.
13
Miner never planned to hire an attorney.
14
128.
Miner had dealt with Harkins previously and knew it was a lost cause when
15
Harkins was selected by the board. Harkins is an aggressive advocate for the Association
16
(and his own pocketbook). The amount in dispute at that time was less than $500. Miner
17
was paying his assessments on time as he had promised, and had made many written
18
statements he would pay all assessments in full and any fees legally due. Miner had several
19
emails with Harkins. Harkins quickly notified Miner that Harkins would be charging pre-
20
litigation attorney fees. (Miner considered litigation to be Superior Court).
21
129.
Harkins immediate statement about attorney fees was Miner's first clue that
22
was where Harkins wanted it to go. However, Miner was not concerned because it was
23
Miners goal to be done with these issues, and there would no litigation; but that would
24
change.
25
130.
Miner was familiar with litigation. He queried Harkins about mediators to test
26
the water. Harkins replied with the most expensive mediation resources available. Harkins
27
replied with mediation services that may have run $2,500 to $5,000 for a dispute of less
28
than $500. It was clear to Miner that Harkins had no real interest in resolving the issue.
Page 32
131.
Miner had no knowledge that Harkins was billing the Association for every
email they were exchanging. If Miner had known he would not have sent many emails or
any. Harkins effectively dumped the mediation into Miner's lap, basically said - you go find
a mediator... you go find a mediation venue... when youre done let me know and if I don't
like what you have done, you can do it all over again.
132.
On or about December 16th 2013 Miner sent a formal demand for the
assessment lien to be withdrawn. Miner, as a real estate professional, believed the notice
was fatally defective by Statute. The notice to Miner did not include the required Itemized
Statement of Charges, the lien filed was a one page document, did not have the proper
10
Notice of Delinquent Assessment or the Itemized Statement of Charges recorded
11
together to form the assessment lien. Miner disputed the notice and lien. Miner sent
12
multiple letters and emails demanding the lien, a cloud on his title be removed. It never
13
was. Almost all charges placed on Miners account resulted after the lien was filed and
14
were a result of the lien itself and Harkins alleged attorney fees.
15
133.
Miner then received a letter from the Association. This new letter stated they
16
were placing his accounting in collections before ADR was to take place. Miner was
17
confused again. His account was already in collections and years in default!
18
134.
Miner was taken back by the actions of the Association, the litany of issues
19
was growing. It was the Association that failed to send invoices, it was the Association that
20
failed to respond to letters, it was the Association that placed false charges on Miners
21
ledger, it was the Association that demanded a lump sum payment after its own failures, it
22
was the Association that sent improper notices, and it was the Association that broke the
23
law at every stage - but no one at the Association or the Associations agents or attorneys
24
would take responsibility for the errors, the negligence, and or wilful acts that were
25
harming Miner. In reality Miner knew it was the negligence of the service providers that
26
caused these issues.
27
28
135.
Miner repeatedly informed Harkins and the Association that he just wanted to
pay the assessments off and be on with his life. It appeared to Miner the Association was
Page 33
taking deliberate actions to harm Miner, not resolve the issues. Miner noticed Harkins
emails became self serving, and factually untrue.
136.
By law ADR must be completed within ninety days from request. Ninety days
would have been the first week of January 2014. It was now Christmastime 2013. When
Miner believed mediation would not take place because of the holidays and Harkins lack of
interest he became worried. Harkins had not been helpful, and when Harkins was failing to
set up the last meeting Miner finally decided to try and obtain relief in Small Claims court.
Miner filed an action for relief but made clear to Harkins via several emails that he was
ready to mediate and solve the dispute at any time. Harkins never contacted Miner to
10
resolve the issues again. Miners last email from Harkins indicated Harkins may be able
11
to set up a meeting. Harkins never did, and then attempted to blame the failure of ADR on
12
Miner. Miner made it clear in emails he would meet for ADR. Miners last letter to Harkins
13
was January 9, 2014.
14
137.
While Miner was receptive to settle, it was Harkins, the Associations
15
attorney, who never again replied or attempted to resolve the ADR issues again. Miner
16
made it clear in writing his goal was to pay his assessments and be done with these issues.
17
Interestingly, when Miner received copies of James Harkins billing invoices, the invoices
18
he was soon to be sued over, Harkins invoices did not match up with Harkins statements
19
to Miner in email.
20
138.
Miner alleges there was never a collection on Miners account. Miner was
21
paying down the assessments as promised, and paid on time every month starting back in
22
October 2013. He informed everyone including the attorney, James Harkins, the
23
assessments would be paid off by February 2014. In February 2014 Miner paid off all past
24
due monthly assessments in full. This left a minimal balance of $148 for the month of
25
February 2014. Miner had informed Harkins in writing he would pay the assessments off in
26
his emails to the attorney yet the attorney Harkins and or the Association manager appeared
27
to have different plans for Miner. This is when Miners new troubles really began.
28
139.
Even though Miner stated his goal was to pay off all assessments by February
Page 34
2014 in his January 7th 2014 email to Harkins, this is when the attorneys fee attack began
and the Association started to intentionally harm Miner financially and use the attorneys
fees as a weapon.
4
5
6
7
Miners January 7th 2014 email to James Harkins, the Associations attorney
stated:
My intention is to get the unpaid assessments paid off this month or next. The other
issues [lien fees, late fees and interest] are a different matter and I truly don't believe
10
I owe them, as you should also know CC&Rs are to be strictly construed as well -
11
case law supports this and I received NO invoices from Action through the time they
12
were fired. If I had I would have been paying all along.
13
14
140.
Miner and Harkins had several emails. Miner clearly informed Harkins he
15
planned to pay off all assessments in either January or February, as he had informed the
16
Association directly many times. Harkins should have also relayed this information to the
17
Association.
18
141.
On Miners February 2014 Invoice he noted $2125 in attorney fees. Miner
19
looked up the law and found that attorney fees must be awarded by the court. He then read
20
in the Condo Blue Book, a well known legal guide for common interest developments, that
21
an Association can not place attorney fees on his ledger unless they have been awarded by a
22
Court. He read The Small Claims Act and the Davis Stirling Act and found that ADR is not
23
required for Small Claims and that ADR attorney fees cannot be awarded in Small Claims.
24
Miner did not believe he owed any attorney fees, there had been no mediation, no meeting,
25
no ADR, and no resolution. If there were any costs they were the costs of the Association as
26
no ADR ever took place. The only interaction were a few emails between Harkins and
27
Miner. Miner, on information and belief, contends it was Erica Griffiths who decided to
28
place the fees on Miner's ledger. Miner contends that the Association concocted a recipe to
Page 35
harm Miner financially; to use attorneys fees as weapon and began to pile the fees on his
ledger.
142.
Miner demanded the attorney Harkin's invoices. Originally the Association
put up a fight and would not provide Miner with any invoices. Eventually he got a few that
started giving him clues to what was actually going on. From the invoice statements it was
the Association community manager, Erica Griffith, who was constantly communicating
with Harkins. While Harkins was appointed to represent the Association for ADR, ADR
never occurred, there was no resolution. Miners personal belief is that Harkins profits
significantly from the Association, Harkins has no real incentive to solve any issues. Once
10
Miner gave up on Harkins and filed in Small Claims, he effectively never heard from
11
Harkins again... yet attorney Harkins became a billing machine collecting and or invoicing
12
the Association more than $12,000 for dispute over less than an original $150 in interest
13
and late fees that were NEVER Miners fault.
14
143.
On information and belief, Griffith began contacting Harkins frequently. For
15
every telephone call, email, document review, letter or email penned, Griffith, the
16
community manager, would then place the invoice amount directly on Miner's bill with no
17
award by the Court. Griffith was charging Miner for: consultations with Harkins via email
18
and phone calls, questions about documents she can send, writing Small Claims briefs for
19
the Association, attorney representation in ADR and more. Harkins was never engaged to
20
collect on Miners account. His services contract is not a collection contract. In fact no
21
collection action ever occurred, Miner was paying his assessment debt off as he stated he
22
would, in fact, it was almost paid in full.
23
144.
By the end of February 2014 Miner owed the following amounts on his
24
ledger. $148 in assessments. Assessments are not late until they are 30 days past due.
25
Effectively Miners past due assessments were paid in full by February 2014. The fees that
26
remained on his account were $100 for a notice fee (disputed), $250 for a lien recording fee
27
(disputed), $180+ in interest and late fees (disputed) and now a whopping $2,125 in
28
attorney fees arbitrarily placed on Miners ledger by someone in authority at Huntington or

Page 36
Keystone.
145.
Griffith, the community manager, placed on Miners ledger an $85 Small
Claims fee then another $1,750 on April 14, 2014 for attorney fees, and then $2,850 on
April 28, 2014 for additional attorney fees. In February Huntington cross-complained
against Miner in Small Claims for the amount of about $4600 . As Miners assessment debt
diminished to zero about mid February his purported Association attorney fees rose to
about $6,725. There was no clue on Miners ledger as to what exactly the attorney fees
were for. They were billed as arbitrary debt collection fees.
146.
Miner wondered who was behind all the financial waste in homeowner
10
assessments? Miner believed, at that time, more than $100,000 in hard working blue collar
11
homeowners funds had gone to pay attorneys, after it was the attorney who intentionally
12
refused Miners $3500 good faith payment. Miner started wondering, is it the tail that wags
13
the dog in these Associations? Do management companies and attorneys purposely create
14
situations they can bill the Association for? Or is it the Directors who make the decisions?
15
Miner is in business, no business can survive spending $12,000 in attorney fees to collect a
16
$120 debt, and no businessman would ever consider this, unless of course it was revenge.
17
147.
In 2014 Miner received a telephone call from a person identified as Diann
18
Robertson (Robertson). Robertson left a voice mail on Miners PBX at his office. She
19
stated she had some papers for Miner. Miner returned her call and informed her he would
20
be out of town. When Miner returned to his office he found a service of process stuffed in
21
the unlocked mailbox in front of his office. Robertson had left a voice mail on Miners
22
office telephone system that she had left papers in Miners commercial mailbox. Miner
23
kept a copy of the voice mail. Miner then checked the court records and found that
24
Robertson filed a proof of service and stated she had served Miner personally.
25
148.
Later it was found that Robertson was actually surveilling Miner and invading
26
his privacy. Miner found out the Association had paid Robertson and Barr $1,000 to trail
27
and surveil Miner. Robertson not only filed a false proof of service under penalty of
28
perjury, but filed false statement as to the cost of her services. At that time Miner found his
Page 37
front security camera broken, and mail missing from his mailbox. That was the second
questionable process server the Association had located that was willing to perjure
themselves for the Association.
149.
On information and belief, it was also later discovered that Robertson, or her
private detective employer Barr, ran debt collection information about Miners wife Lily
Dunlop (not a party to this or any action) and his personal residence invading both his and
his wifes privacy. On information and belief Robertson is employed by Barr who was
contracted by the Association or its agent to investigate Miner and his wife Lily Dunlop.
150.
Robertson had lied to the court, under penalty of perjury, thus harming Miner.
10
There was no reason for this false attempted service charade as Miner was represented by
11
an attorney and could have been served through his attorney Sam Walker at any time. This
12
is another waste of $1,000 in the Associations funds. Was this just cover to investigate and
13
further harass Miner and his wife?
14
THE SMALL CLAIMS COLLECTIONS
15
151.
On May 1, in the Court Hallway before Small Claims Court, Ms. Bennett, a
16
collection agent, for Huntington served Miner with a new complaint in the amount of
17
$5,000. The new trial was set for July 10, 2014. Months later Miner found the Association
18
or its agent had been guilty of perjury as the new complaint was the third for more than
19
$2500 filed in 2014. By law the complaint was prohibited for that amount in Small Claims.
20
While Miner did not understand in the hallway, the reason for the new complaint would be
21
made clear in the courtroom.
22
152.
In Miner's Small Claims complaint he asked for relief. He did not ask for
23
money and had no personal money damages. The Association showed at the hearing and
24
ambushed Miner with a 50 page attorney prepared brief (assumed to be prepared by
25
Harkins), an ambush that would not be tolerated in civil court. On information and belief, it
26
was James Harkins, the attorney who had planned and ambushed Miner with an
27
inflammatory, factually slanted, trial brief that would infuriate any Judge. Miner, had no
28
way to respond to the ambush.

Page 38
153.
Miner put on his case, and after he completed his case in full, Bennett, the
Keystone collection employee, stood up and stated to the court she wanted to withdraw
Huntington's cross complaint against Miner (which was mostly for attorney fees). There
was no service of process issue as Miner appeared in Court and put on his case. All
claims could have been litigated and settled right there and then, yet Ms. Bennett dismissed
the action claiming service of process. The Court allowed the withdrawal without
prejudice causing prejudice to Miner after he had put on his entire case, effectively giving
the other side discovery.
154.
A ruling for Miner came a week or two later and Miner was awarded no
10
money. There was no statement of decision. It's unknown what the Judge meant by his
11
decision except that Miner be awarded no money. Miner's defective lien issues could not be
12
litigated in Small Claims as it had no jurisdiction over those issues or giving Miner the
13
relief he had requested. The Association had the opportunity to put on its case in full that
14
day and chose not to... the attorney fees charged to Miner again began to escalate.
15
155.
During the time period following the failure of Keystones agent completing,
16
and wilfully dismissing the cross complaint on about May 1, 2014 and the new trial for the
17
new complaint it filed against Miner, the Associations attorney racked up another $6,000
18
on Miners ledger for attorney fees while attempting to collect an alleged debt of just $435,
19
which Miner disputed. Then Keystone began adding attorney fees to Miners ledger
20
account.
21
156.
July 2014 was the second Small Claims trial. The Association was again
22
suing for attorney fees in connection with an alleged defective assessment lien caused by
23
the Association's own negligence, lien fees, and a Small Claims fee. The Association now
24
was a moving target as it continued changing the category of fees attempting to make the
25
fees a recoverable collection fee when in reality the majority of the fees on Miners
26
ledger were attorney fees for Keystones managers own private attorney consulting; not
27
collection. There were no assessments due on the lien; all past due assessments had been
28
paid in full by February. The Association had been notified the lien and notice were both
Page 39
defective but refused to withdraw the lien. Civil code requires that when an erroneous lien
is withdrawn all associated collection charges also be withdrawn, including attorneys fees.
Miner had no remedy for this in Small Claims Court.
157.
On information and belief Harkins again wrote an immensely inflammatory,
one-sided, scathing trial brief intended to harm Miners reputation in front of the Small
Claims Judge. Brittany Bennett, read the brief to the Judge, from what Miner believed to be
really Harkins prepared statement. Ms. Bennett then presented the Judge with the
inflammatory brief, and 100 pages of exhibits, ambushing Miner once again allowing him
no time to respond to the mis-truths and inaccuracies in brief. Probably the most offensive
10
issue was that for every minute Harkins spent on making Miner look bad to the court,
11
Harkins then billed Miner through the Association. The Court again ruled against Miner;
12
Miner appealed.
13
158.
The Small Claims appeal was to take place on September 22, 2014 in the
14
main Santa Ana Court House. Miner believed the Association was again skirting the law by
15
filing in Small Claims. Several legal issues were at issue: 1) whether the Small Claims
16
Court had Subject Matter Jurisdiction over the assessment lien collection claims pursuant
17
to 5720 of the Civil Code, 2) the Association had filed its third action in Small Claims
18
over $2500 that calendar year 116.231(a), and 3) whether any attorney fees could be
19
awarded in Small Claims court, and if so, what for. The complaint filed was mostly for
20
attorney fees - representation and consultation. Again, Miner believed the Association had
21
foolishly spent another $15,000 of the homeowners money in agents fees over the
22
illegal $120 late fees and interest the agents wished to charge Miner, and lump sum
23
demand for assessment dues after not contacting Miner after the previous trial for more
24
than eight months.
25
159.
Starting with the first fraudulent proof of service signed and filed with the
26
Court in 2011 by Arturo Chayra claiming to have served Miner at a property Miner had not
27
resided in for eight years, through the false and inaccurate accounting submitted by
28
Feldsott-Lee, the false proof of service found in a mail box supplied by Robertson and Barr,
Page 40
to the inflammatory trial briefs written by attorney James Harkins, who bills the
Association to collect $25,000 in attorney fees over a false $120 dispute, this Association
and its agents have shown a pattern of abuse, harassment, negligence, complete disregard
for the law and foreseeable harm to Miner; to many it would appear to be a conspiracy to
harm Miner. Indeed, they have achieved their goal. Miner and his family have been harmed,
mentally, emotionally, and financially with thousands of hours stolen from his life dealing
with these wilful, punitive and malicious violations of the law. Actions against Miner have
been continuous related tortious acts that have harmed Miner since the illegal refusal of his
assessment payments in 2011. Miner alleges the Doctrine of Continuing Violations, and the
10
Doctrine of Equitable Tolling apply to this cause of action.
11
12
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
13
BREACH OF GOVERNING DOCUMENTS
14
(Against Defendant Huntington & Does 10 - 50)
15
16
17
160.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all of the proceeding
paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

161.
Defendant breached the Declaration (CC&Rs) by failing to send monthly
18
invoices to Miner. Starting as far back as at least April 2011, or further, Huntington through
19
its agents failed to send Plaintiff monthly invoices as required by page 3, paragraph 8 of
20
the Declaration.
21
162.
As long as Miner owned the property it was customary, and a requirement of
22
the Declaration, to send invoices monthly to the members. An Association can not have it
23
both ways, it can not use the Declaration to enforce the rules and regulations of the
24
Corporation, and not follow that same Declaration and satisfy its obligations. Plaintiff
25
contends the Association must strictly follow the rules and regulations set forth in its own
26
Declaration recorded February 28, 1963 - as recorded document number 22086, County of
27
Orange.
28
Page 41
Invoices for such pro rata amount determined pursuant to [2],[3],[4],[5] and [6]
shall be submitted to said owners monthly... ...he will pay this charge to the
Association within ten days of a receipt of an invoice...
4
5
163.
As a direct and proximate result of the failure to send the required monthly
invoices Huntington contributed to Plaintiffs failure to pay the required invoices. Plaintiff
alleges Huntington failed to abide by its own contractual obligations pursuant to the
Declaration. Had Defendant sent proper invoices following the former trial that ended in
September 2012 the instant matter would have never occurred. The Association failed to
10
send invoices to any address let alone the primary or secondary address as required by the
11
governing documents and governing law. Plaintiff alleges Huntington failed to send
12
invoices for at least twenty-five [25] straight months prior to June 1, 2013. Plaintiff alleges
13
Huntingtons conduct was a factor in Plaintiffs tardy assessment payments.
14
164.
Plaintiff therefore seeks damages incurred including, but not limited to,
15
incidental expenses, consequential expenses. and reasonable attorneys fees, all subject to
16
proof.
17
18
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
19
VIOLATIONS OF THE DAVIS-STIRLING ACT
20
(Against Defendants Huntington, Keystone & Does 10 - 50)
21
22
23
165.

166.
The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act [ACT] is the popular
24
name of the portion of the California Civil Code beginning with section 4000, which
25
governs condominium, cooperative, and planned unit development communities in
26
California, these are also known as common interest developments. It was authored in
27
1985. There have been constant amendments to the ACT. The California State Legislature,
28
Page 42
in 2012 with the new codification coming into effect in 2014. Generally, the Davis Stirling
Act is considered to have been enacted to protect the homeowner.
167.
Plaintiff alleges Huntington violated a multiplicity of Statutes while dealing
with Miner as a member of the Association. Keystone as the Associations agent was
directly responsible for many of these violations. Plaintiff alleges the association and its
manager-collector, Keystone, are required to follow the law of the Davis Stirling Act.
Plaintiff alleges Keystones failures resulted in foreseeable harm to Miner. These alleged
violations encompass two versions of the ACT, both the 2013 and 2014 revisions. While
most law is the same and simply re-codified, certain verbiage of the relevant laws have
10
11
12
changed to a degree.
168.
Plaintiff alleges that the Association committed the following violations of
the Davis Stirling Act:
13
A.
Huntington refused Miners assessment payments: In concert several of
14
the Defendants refused Miners assessment payments. This practice of refusing and
15
prohibiting payment contributed to Miners delinquency in June 2013 when the
16
Association illegally demanded a lump sum payment. The Association, Feldsott-Lee,
17
and Pagano illegally refused Miner's assessment payments from about November
18
2011 through May 2013 or about 19 months. This was a violation of Civil Code
19
1365.1(b), Civil Code 1367.1(b). The last bad act after years of continuing
20
violations was to submit false accounting February 22, 2015 - when Jacqueline
21
Pagano, an agent for Huntington, submitted false and confusing debt amount and
22
false, confusing and inaccurate interest calculations and accounting to the court.
23
[exhibit #9]
24
B.
25
address: Even though Miner has requested in writing he receive his documents to
26
both the primary and secondary locations on many occasions, Huntington has failed
27
to send these documents to Miners primary address at his Condo 40+ months, Civil
28
Code 1350.7, Civil Code 1365.1( c ) (continuing violation)
Huntington / Keystone fails to send required documents to the primary
Page 43
C.
1) Huntington / Keystone failed to send lien notice to defendants attorney / counsel,
1367.1 (j) (DSA 2013)
2) Huntington failed to offer payment plan at mediation, Civil Code 1365.1
3) Huntington failed to complete ADR, Civil Code 1369.580
4) Huntington / Keystone failed to include Itemized Statement of Charges with
Notice of Delinquent Assessment (pre-lien notice), Civil Code 1367. 1367. 1(a)
(2)
5) Huntington / Keystone failed to record proper Notice of Delinquent Assessments,
Huntington / Keystone Violated Lien Related Statutory Issues
10
with proper Itemized Statement of Charges, 1367.1(d) (making the lien VOID -
11
1367.5)
12
6) Huntington / Keystone failed to remove void lien and remove all charges including
13
collection charges against Miner within 21 days following written demand. Civil
14
Code 1367.1(I)
15
7) Huntington sued Miner in Small Claims court AFTER filing a real estate lien.
16
Contrary to Statute 1367.4 (5720) and Legislatures intent prohibiting Association
17
from filing a lien then suing in Small Claims Court, plaintiff alleges Huntington and
18
Keystone then violated the Statute by suing Miner twice in Small Claims Court, after
19
Huntington had filed a real property lien. Legislative history is clear in that the
20
Legislature never intended the Association to file an assessment lien and sue in Small
21
Claims court because it creates jurisdictional issues with the lien, and its challenge
22
of validity. This clever legal tactic, apparently intended to skirt Miners ability to
23
challenge the validity of the recorded Notice of Delinquent Assessment and the
24
requirements of the lien, Miner alleges was a violation of the Davis Stirling Act.
25
169.
26
incidental expenses, consequential expenses, and reasonable attorneys fees, all subject to
27
proof.
28
Page 44
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL DEBT COLLECTION LAW
15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. (FDCPA)
(Against Feldsott-Lee, Feldostt, Pagano, Jones, Keystone, Treff, Griffith,

Bennett, Barger, Cane-Walker, and Harkins)
5
6
7
8
9
170.

171.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants Feldsott-Lee, Feldsott, Pagano, Jones, Keystone,
Griffith, Bennett, Barger; Cane-Walker, and Harkins are Debt Collectors within the
10
meaning of 15 U.S.C. 1692a(6). Plaintiff is a consumer within the meaning of 15
11
U.S.C. 1692a(3). The monies allegedly owed by Plaintiff are debt within the meaning
12
of 15 U.S.C. 1692a(5).
13
14
FELDSOTT DEFENDANTS
15
Feldsott-Lee, Feldostt, Pagano, Jones;
16
172.
Defendant Feldsott-Lee, and its collectors Feldsott, Pagano, Jones purport to
17
collect accounts from Plaintiff as an agent on behalf of the Association to which Plaintiff
18
belongs. Thus, Defendants rights against Plaintiff are entirely derived from those of the
19
principal HOA. The rights of the HOA, in turn, are defined by the CC&Rs and limited by
20
the Davis-Stirling Act.
21
173.
Defendant began collection of Plaintiffs consumer debt in about March
22
2011. In about November - December Pagano and Jones began rejecting Plaintiffs
23
assessment payments in violation of law. After two appeals a judgment was entered in
24
favor of Plaintiff, the Association took nothing in their complaint against Plaintiff. During
25
this five year collection effort Plaintiff alleges the FLEDSOTT DEFENDANTS violated a
26
multiplicity of FDCPA laws. Feldsott-Lees final bad act after years of continuing
27
violations was to submit false accounting February 22, 2015 - when Jacqueline Pagano
28
submitted false and confusing debt amount and false, confusing and inaccurate interest
Page 45
calculations and accounting to the court. [exhibit #9] Plaintiff alleges the Feldsott
Defendants, each of them, are debt collectors and have violated the following provisions of
the FDCPA:
a. Falsely representing the nature, character and amount of the debt, in violation of
1692e(2)(A);
b. Falsely representing the compensation it could lawfully receive in violation of
1692e(2)(B);
c. Threatening to take an action that could not legally be taken or was not intended to
be taken in violation of 1692e(5);
10
d. Using false representations or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a
11
debt in violation of 1692e(10);
12
e. The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and,
13
in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral
14
communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any
15
information obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose
16
in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector,
17
except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection
18
with a legal action in violation of 1692e(11);
19
f. A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt
20
to collect any debt in violation of 1692f;
21
g. The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense
22
incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by
23
the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law in violation of 1692f(1); and
24
h. Notice of debt; Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer
25
in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the
26
following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has
27
paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing:
28
(1) the amount of the debt;

Page 46
(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice,
disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed
to be valid by the debt collector;
(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the
thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector
will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and
a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt
collector 1692g(a 1-4);
10
11
KEYSTONE DEFENDANTS
12
Keystone; Treff, Griffith, Bennett, Barger; Cane-Walker, Harkins
13
174.
Defendant Keystone, and its collectors Treff, Griffith, Bennett, Barger;
14
Cane-Walker, and Harkins purport to collect accounts from Plaintiff as an agent on behalf
15
of the Association to which Plaintiff belongs. Thus, Defendants rights against Plaintiff are
16
entirely derived from those of the principal HOA. The rights of the HOA, in turn, are
17
defined by the CC&Rs and limited by the Davis-Stirling Act.
18
175.
Defendants began collection of Plaintiffs consumer debt in about June 2013.
19
Plaintiffs consumer debt was years in default at the time Huntington was assigned Miners
20
debt collection and engaged Cane-Walker and Harkins to assist in the debt collection.
21
During this two year collection effort Plaintiff alleges the KEYSTONE DEFENDANTS
22
violated a multiplicity of FDCPA laws. Defendants continue their bad acts claiming
23
Plaintiff owes debt but they can not give him a specific amount other than 50+/- pages of
24
inaccurate and confusing documents delivered March 30, 2015. [exhibit #10] Plaintiff
25
alleges the Keystone Defendants, each of them, are debt collectors and have violated the
26
following provisions of the FDCPA:
27
28
1692e(2)(A);
Page 47
1692e(2)(B);
10
11
12
13
with a legal action. in violation of 1692e(11);
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 48
176.
Miner alleges, on information and belief, Keystone breached, severed,
exceeded, and failed their fiduciary duty and or relationship when they failed to follow law,
abide by the statutory requirements of Davis Stirling Act, State and Federal debt collection
law. It then illegally used the Associations funds, and engaged the Associations attorney
10
who willingly aided and abetted in assisting in attempting to coverup the collectors own
11
errors. Miner alleges these Defendants falsely prosecuted Miner, wilfully inflict financial
12
harm to cover up their own abusive collection errors.
13
177.
Miner alleges pursuant to both Federal and California debt collection law
14
under the following two theories Keystone is a debt collector: 1) Miners debt was in
15
default when Keystone took over collection; 2) Miner contends Keystone is a large multi-
16
county Association manager. If a business was managing 1 or 2 or 5 complexes then debt
17
collection may be incidental to its business. When a company expands to managing 100
18
Associations, debt collection becomes a division of the business.
19
178.
Plaintiff contends when debt collection becomes a division and that division
20
could legitimately be a business on its own, the business should then be held to standards
21
of law that all other debt collectors are held to. The economies of scale should not preclude
22
Defendant Keystone from being classified legally as a debt collector. Plaintiffs research
23
shows 15% of debt collectors in a recent study had 4 employees or less. If any one of those
24
companies were merged into a large management company, it would be instantly
25
transformed from a debt collector subject to state and federal law, to a business not
26
regulated, for identical debt collection services.
27
28
179.
Miner contends under the State and Federal Constitution he is guaranteed
equal protection under the law. Miner contends that he should be protected equally from
Page 49
collectors of the same size, that effectively do the same job. Defendant Keystone has a debt
collection division. The debt collection is substantial business for Keystone, substantial
enough to have its own collection division. Debt collection law should apply to that
division. Keystone should not be able skirt the law because its debt collection company
happens to be in an out building of a larger entity.
6
7
180.
damages.
8
9
10
As a result of Defendants violations of the FDCPA, Plaintiff has suffered
181.
incidental expenses, consequential expenses and attorneys fees, and statutory fines all
subject to proof.
11
12
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13
VIOLATIONS OF STATE DEBT COLLECTION LAW - ROSENTHAL ACT
14
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civ. Code, 1788 et seq.)
15
(Against Defendants Keystone & Does 10 - 50)
16
17
182.
18
183.
Defendant Keystone, and its collectors purport to collect accounts from
19
Plaintiff as an agent on behalf of the Association to which Plaintiff belongs. Thus,
20
Defendants rights against Plaintiff are entirely derived from those of the principal HOA.
21
The rights of the HOA, in turn, are defined by the CC&Rs and limited by the Davis-Stirling
22
Act.
23
184.
Defendants began collection of Plaintiffs consumer debt in about June 2013.
24
Plaintiffs consumer debt was years in default at the time Huntington was assigned Miners
25
debt collection and engaged Cane-Walker and Harkins to assist in the debt collection.
26
During this two year collection effort Plaintiff alleges the KEYSTONE DEFENDANTS
27
violated a multiplicity of FDCPA laws. Defendants continue their bad acts claiming
28
Plaintiff owes debt but they can not give him a specific amount other than 50+/- pages of
Page 50
inaccurate and confusing documents delivered March 30, 2015. [exhibit #10] Plaintiff
alleges the Keystone Defendants, each of them, are debt collectors and have violated the
following provisions of the FDCPA:
1692e(2)(A);
1692e(2)(B);
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Page 51
10
185.
Miner alleges, on information and belief, Keystone breached, severed,
11
exceeded, and failed their fiduciary duty and or relationship when they failed to follow law,
12
abide by the statutory requirements of Davis Stirling Act, State and Federal debt collection
13
law. It then illegally used the Associations funds, and engaged the Associations attorney
14
who willingly aided and abetted in assisting in attempting to coverup the collectors own
15
errors. Miner alleges these Defendants falsely prosecuted Miner, wilfully inflict financial
16
harm to cover up their own abusive collection errors.
17
186.
Miner alleges pursuant to both Federal and California debt collection law
18
under the following two theories Keystone is a debt collector: 1) Miners debt was in
19
default when Keystone took over collection; 2) Miner contends Keystone is a large multi-
20
county Association manager. If a business was managing 1 or 2 or 5 complexes then debt
21
collection may be incidental to its business. When a company expands to managing 100
22
Associations, debt collection becomes a division of the business.
23
187.
Plaintiff contends when debt collection becomes a division and that division
24
could legitimately be a business on its own, the business should then be held to standards
25
of law that all other debt collectors are held to. The economies of scale should not preclude
26
Defendant Keystone from being classified legally as a debt collector. Plaintiffs research
27
shows 15% of debt collectors in a recent study had 4 employees or less. If any one of those
28
companies were merged into a large management company, it would be instantly

Page 52
transformed from a debt collector subject to state and federal law, to a business not
regulated, for identical debt collection services.
188.
Miner contends under the State and Federal Constitution he is guaranteed
equal protection under the law. Miner contends that he should be protected equally from
collectors of the same size, that effectively do the same job. Defendant Keystone has a debt
collection division. The debt collection is substantial business for Keystone, substantial
enough to have its own collection division. Debt collection law should apply to that
division. Keystone should not be able skirt the law because its debt collection company
happens to be in an out building of a larger entity.
10
11
12
189.
damages.
190.
13
14
subject to proof.
15
16
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17
VIOLATION OF BUS. & PROF. CODE 17200, et seq.
18
(Against Feldsott-Lee, Feldostt, Pagano, Jones, Keystone, Treff, Griffith,
19
Bennett, Barger, Cane-Walker, Harkins & Does 10 - 50)
20
21
22
191.

192.
Defendants have engaged in, and continue to engage in, unlawful, unfair, and
23
fraudulent business practices pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq. This cause of
24
action is based on violations of the FDCPA.2
25
26
27
People v. Persolve 218 Cal.App.4th 1267 (2013)
28
Page 53
FELDSOTT DEFENDANTS
Feldsott-Lee, Feldostt, Pagano, Jones;
193.
Defendant Feldsott-Lee, and its collectors Feldsott, Pagano, Jones purport to
collect accounts from Plaintiff as an agent on behalf of the Association to which Plaintiff
belongs. Thus, Defendants rights against Plaintiff are entirely derived from those of the
principal HOA. The rights of the HOA, in turn, are defined by the CC&Rs and limited by
the Davis-Stirling Act. Defendants have engaged in, and continue to engage in, unlawful,
unfair, and fraudulent business practices pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq.
Defendant has engaged in has engaged in, and continues to engage in, unfair business
10
practices including, but not limited to:
11
a. Falsely representing the nature, character and amount of the debt;
12
b. Falsely representing the compensation it could lawfully receive;
13
14
be taken;
15
16
debt;
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
with a legal action;
24
25
to collect any debt;
26
27
28
the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law; and

Page 54
10
11
12
13
14
collector.
15
16
KEYSTONE DEFENDANTS
17
18
194.
19
Cane-Walker, Harkins purport to collect accounts from Plaintiff as an agent on behalf of
20
the Association to which Plaintiff belongs. Thus, Defendants rights against Plaintiff are
21
entirely derived from those of the principal HOA. The rights of the HOA, in turn, are
22
defined by the CC&Rs and limited by the Davis-Stirling Act. Defendants have engaged in,
23
and continue to engage in, unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices pursuant to
24
Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq. Defendant has engaged in, and continues to engage in,
25
unfair business practices including, but not limited to:
26
27
1692e(2)(A);
28
Page 55
1692e(2)(B);
10
11
12
13
with a legal action. in violation of 1692e(11);
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 56
195.
7
8
9
10
damages and injury.

196.
subject to proof.
11
12
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13
NEGLIGENCE
14
(Against Huntington, Laine, Kuck & Does 10 - 50)
15
16
17
197.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 168,
C6 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

198.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges Defendants
18
Huntington, Laine and Kuck owed a duty of care to Plaintiff to carry out their functions as a
19
board of directors and officers on the board of directors in such a manner so as not to harm
20
Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached that duty by violating the Huntington
21
Governing Documents and the Sterling Davis Act as alleged herein above in paragraphs
22
161 through 168, C6 of this Complaint. As a direct, proximate and legal consequence of
23
Defendants breaches Plaintiff suffered damages
24
199.
Plaintiff alleges Directors Laine and Kuck ,acting in their capacity as officers
25
for the Huntington Board of Directors, personally participated and authorized the wrongful
26
acts against Miner. These acts were negligent and Directors directly participated in the
27
decision making that led to Miners damages.
28
Page 57
200.
Plaintiff alleges Huntington was negligent by its failures and violations
including at least the following: 1) failed to send invoices, 2) failed to send documents to
primary and secondary address, 3) failed to accept partial payments, 4) failed to apply
partial payments to the members assessments first, 5) failed to send an Itemized Statement
of Charges with the Notice of Delinquent Assessment, 6) failed to record the proper
Itemized Statement of Charges with the proper Notice of Delinquent Assessment, 7) failed
to remove the defective real property lien, 8) failed to remove the charges created because
of the lien, 9) billed Plaintiff for false, unrelated, and excessive attorney fees and charges,
10) allowed its agent to place un-awarded attorney fees on Plaintiffs ledger, 11) allowed
10
Associaions agents to run-a-muck and create thousands of dollars in unnecessary fees that
11
it then charged to Plaintiff. Plaintiff complained and notified the Association and Directors
12
in writing.
13
201.
Plaintiff alleges Laine as President of Huntington and Kuck as Treasurer were
14
negligent by their failures as Directors who could have and should have prevented or
15
stopped this abuse. By failing to end the abuse and violations and allowing it to continue
16
for years Miner was damaged. All harm to Miner was easily foreseeable and Miner sent
17
many letters to the Directors warning them of the violations and abuse.
18
202.
As a result of Defendants violations of law Plaintiff has suffered damages.
19
203.
20
21
subject to proof.
22
23
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
25
(Plaintiff sues as a member of the corporation injured by actions of the professionals)
26
(Against Feldsott-Lee, Feldsott, Pagano, Keystone, Treff, Griffith,
27
Bennett, Barger, Cane-Walker, Harkins & Does 10 - 50)
28
Page 58
1
2
3
204.

205.
Miner is an owner- member in good standing, of the Huntington Continental
Town Home Association, Inc. In this cause of action Plaintiff sues and contends he has
standing in privity of contract as a member and / or a third party beneficiary of the contract
between the Association and the professionals.
206.
Plaintiff steps into the shoes of a damaged member of the Association who
sues the named service providers for monies charged and lost directly and proximately
during their illegal collection actions. This cause of action alleges that many of the debt
10
collection practices and procedures of the named corporate agents are in violation of federal
11
and state law, violation of the Federal FDCPA, and the Davis Stirling Act.
12
207.
Miner on information and belief, therefore alleges he has standing to sue, as
13
he would in a corporate shareholder derivative suit, or a member who has been financially
14
damaged when the harm caused was foreseeable by the professionals. Plaintiff sues to
15
recover the service fees and losses amassed by the Association directly or proximately
16
caused by the malpractice of the insiders and service providers who, as Miner alleges, have
17
violated the law in performance of their services, which in turn have harmed the
18
corporation. Miner alleges that members combined losses exceed $250,000. Miner sues for
19
the recovery of these losses, to the corporation, from the professionals who have been
20
unjustly enriched.
21
208.
22
23
Feldsott-Lee was and at all relevant times was a professional law firm and
debt collector and conducted itself as such during all relevant times alleged above.
209.
Plaintiff was in privity of contract and/or a third party beneficiary of the
24
contract between the Association and Feldsott-Lee signed November 11, 2008. At all
25
relevant times Feldsott-Lee and its professionals, Stanley Feldsott and Jacqueline Pagano
26
were imbued with the duty of a professional.
27
28
210.
Keystone was and at all relevant times was a professional debt collector and
management company and conducted itself as such during all relevant times alleged above.
Page 59
211.
contract between the Association and Keystone signed on April 30, 2013. At all relevant
times Keystone and its professionals, Cary Treff, Erica Griffith, Brittany Bennett, and
Renee Barger were imbued with the duty of a professional.
5
6
212.
Cane-Walker was and at all relevant times was a professional law firm and
debt collector and conducted itself as such during all relevant times alleged above.
213.
contract between the Association and Cane-Walker signed on September 27, 2011. At all
relevant times Cane-Walker and its professionals, James C. Harkins were imbued with the
10
duty of a professional.
11
214.
Plaintiff, alleges professionals were to use such skill, prudence and diligence
12
as other members of the debt collection and management profession commonly possess and
13
exercise such care as not to cause harm to Plaintiff in any capacity, either as a victim of
14
their virulent and negligent collection efforts, or in their failure as debt collectors, in their
15
contracts with the owners Association, who Plaintiff is a member.
16
17
215.
In conducting itself as alleged herein Defendants negligently breached that
duty.
18
19
FELDSOTT DEFENDANTS
20
Feldsott-Lee, Feldsott, Pagano, Jones;
21
216.
Defendant Feldsott-Lee, and its collectors Feldsott, Pagano, Jones have
22
attempted to collect accounts from Plaintiff as an agent on behalf of the Association to
23
which Plaintiff belongs. Thus, Defendants rights against Plaintiff are entirely derived from
24
those of the principal HOA. The rights of the HOA, in turn, are defined by the CC&Rs and
25
limited by the Davis-Stirling Act, federal and state law. Plaintiff alleges Defendants have
26
engaged unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices resulting in significant
27
monetary losses to Association and the funds of the 445 member / stock holders (lot
28
holders).
Page 60
217.
Plaintiff, on information and belief, therefore alleges Defendants have
violated the law in collection of Plaintiffs debt. Defendants then billed the Association
significant amount of money for their illegal actions taken against Plaintiff. On information
and belief, the Association is not required to compensate these professionals for grossly
negligent acts or acts in violation of the law.
6
7
218.
Miner alleges, on information and belief, the Feldsott Defendants advice and
actions included the following violations of law:
A. Davis Stirling Act
a. Advised Huntington to refuse Miners assessment payments: In concert several of
10
the Defendants refused Miners assessment payments. This practice of refusing and
11
prohibiting payment contributed to Miners delinquency in June 2013 when the
12
Association illegally demanded a lump sum payment. The Association, Feldsott-Lee,
13
Pagano, and Jones illegally refused Miner's assessment payments from about
14
November 2011 through May 2013 or about 19 months. This was a violation of Civil
15
Code 1365.1(b), Civil Code 1367.1(b).
16
B. Federal and State Debt Collection Law
17
a. Falsely representing the nature, character and amount of the debt;
18
b. Falsely representing the compensation it could lawfully receive;
19
20
be taken;
21
22
debt;
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 61
with a legal action;
to collect any debt;
the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law; and
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
collector.
23
24
KEYSTONE DEFENDANTS
25
26
219.
27
Cane-Walker, and Harkins have attempted to collect accounts from Plaintiff as an agent on
28
behalf of the Association to which Plaintiff belongs. Thus, Defendants rights against
Page 62
Plaintiff are entirely derived from those of the principal HOA. The rights of the HOA, in
turn, are defined by the CC&Rs and limited by the Davis-Stirling Act, federal and state law.
Plaintiff alleges Defendants have engaged unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business
practices resulting in significant monetary losses to Association and the funds of the 445
member / stock holders (lot holders).
220.
Plaintiff, on information and belief, therefore alleges Defendants have
violated the law in collection of Plaintiffs debt. Defendants then billed the Association
significant amounts of money for their illegal actions taken against Plaintiff. On
information and belief, the Association is not required to compensate these professionals
10
11
for grossly negligent acts or acts in violation of the law.

221.
Miner alleges the Keystone Defendants advice and actions included the
12
following violations of law:
13
A. Davis Stirling Act
14
a. Keystone fails to send required documents to the primary address: Even though
15
Miner has requested in writing he receive his documents to both the primary and
16
secondary locations on many occasions, Huntington has failed to send these
17
documents to Miners primary address at his Condo 40+ months, Civil Code
18
1350.7, Civil Code 1365.1( c ) (continuing violation)
19
b. Keystone Violated Lien Related Statutory Issues
20
1) Huntington / Keystone failed to send lien notice to defendants attorney /
21
counsel, 1367.1 (j) (DSA 2013)
22
2) Huntington failed to offer payment plan at mediation, Civil Code 1365.1
23
3) Huntington failed to complete ADR, Civil Code 1369.580
24
4) Huntington / Keystone failed to include Itemized Statement of Charges
25
with Notice of Delinquent Assessment (pre-lien notice), Civil Code 1367.
26
1367. 1(a) (2)
27
5) Huntington / Keystone failed to record proper Notice of Delinquent
28
Page 63
Assessments, with proper Itemized Statement of Charges, 1367.1(d)
(making the lien VOID - 1367.5)
6) Huntington / Keystone failed to remove void lien and remove all charges
including collection charges against Miner within 21 days following written
demand. Civil Code 1367.1(i)
7) Huntington sued Miner in Small Claims court AFTER filing a real estate
lien. Contrary to Statute 1367.4 (5720) and Legislatures intent prohibiting
Association from filing a lien then suing in Small Claims Court, plaintiff
alleges Huntington and Keystone then violated the Statute by suing Miner
10
twice in Small Claims Court, after Huntington had filed a real property lien.
11
Legislative history is clear in that the Legislature never intended the
12
Association to file an assessment lien and sue in Small Claims Court because
13
it creates jurisdictional issues with the lien, and its challenge of validity. This
14
clever legal tactic, apparently intended to skirt Miners ability to challenge the
15
validity of the recorded Notice of Delinquent Assessment and the
16
requirements of the lien, Miner alleges was a violation of the Davis Stirling
17
Act.
18
B. Federal and State Debt Collection Law
19
20
1692e(2)(A);
21
22
1692e(2)(B);
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 64
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
222.
26
27
28
As a result of Defendants violations of law, Plaintiff Association has
suffered damages and injury.

223.
Plaintiff therefore seeks damages incurred including recovery of all monies
lost as a direct and proximate result of Defendantss acts, including incidental expenses,
Page 65
consequential expenses, and attorneys fees, all subject to proof.
2
3
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
(Against Defendants Huntington, Laine, Kuck & Does 10 - 50)
6
7
8
9
10
11
224.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 168
C6, and 198 through 203 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
225.
At all relevant times Miner, as a member of the Association, had a fiduciary
relationship with Huntington and its Board of Directors. Defendants and each of them owed
Miner a fiduciary duty of care to hold his interests above their own.
226.
Miner alleges that the fiduciary relationship was breached by the actions of
12
the Defendants Huntington, Laine and Kuck by virtue of their conduct as described in
13
paragraphs 161 through 168, C6 and 198 through 203 of this Complaint.
14
15
16
17
227.
As a direct, proximate and legal consequence of Defendants conduct and
each of them Plaintiff was caused financial and emotional harm and injury.
228.
incidental expenses, consequential expenses, special and general damages, subject to proof.
18
19
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
21
(Against Defendants Huntington, Laine, Kuck & Does 10 - 50)
22
229.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 168,
23
C6 , 198 through 203 and 225 through 227 of this Complaint as though fully set forth
24
herein.
25
26
27
28
230.
Defendants conduct as herein above described was extreme and outrageous
with a reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress.

231.
Defendants conduct caused Plaintiff to suffer severe and extreme emotional
distress.
Page 66
232.
incidental expenses, consequential expenses, special and general damages, all subject to
proof.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AIDING AND ABETTING
(Against All Defendants & Does 10 - 50)
8
9
10
233.

234.
Defendants conduct as herein above described was committed by defendants
11
with the knowledge that their conduct was tortious and would cause harm to plaintiff. In so
12
doing defendants and each of them knowingly assisted each other in causing plaintiff to
13
suffer the machinations and processes that forced him to defend himself against defendants'
14
illegal activities.
15
235.
16
17
Plaintiff has suffered financial and emotional damages as a direct, legal and
proximate result of defendants' illegal activities.

236.
Plaintiff's aiding and abetting claims are specific to, and encompass only
18
Defendants' relationship with their co-defendants in each separate cause of action. Plaintiff
19
does not assert that all defendants within complaint have aided and abetted one another.
20
The cause and relationship is meant only to allege the relationship of named defendants to
21
each other, in each specific claim, and not the defendants relationship in separate claims as
22
a whole.
23
24
Plaintiff therefore seeks damages incurred including, but not limited to, incidental
expenses, consequential expenses, special and general damages, all subject to proof.
25
26
27
28
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

As to the First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Causes of Action:
1. For damages according to proof, but not less than $100,000 per defendant;
Page 67
2. For interest on the sum of damages at the legal rate;
3. For costs of suit herein incurred; and,
4. For such other and further relief as allowed by law.
As to the Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action:
1. For damages according to proof, but not less than $100,000 per defendant;
2. For statutory damages pursuant to code and law;
3. For interest on the sum of damages at the legal rate;
4. For costs of suit herein incurred;
5. For attorneys fees, and
10
6. For such other and further relief as allowed by law.
11
12
13
Dated: July 9, 2015
By:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 68

Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the nature of the lawsuit?

What is the nature of the lawsuit?

What causes of action are alleged in the complaint?

What causes of action are alleged in the complaint?

Second Amended Complaint Reservation 72197017

Joseph C. Rosenblit (Bar No. 131663)

LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH C. ROSENBLIT

1370 N. Brea Blvd. Suite 235

Attorney for Plaintiff;

Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JM Trust

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JM Trust,

Case No.: 30-2014-00748493-CU-CO-CJC

HUNTINGTON CONTINENTAL TOWN

this case and if called upon to testify I would competently do so.

Attached as Exhibit A is the proposed Second Amended Complaint.

Declaration of Joseph C. Rosenblit

complaint was to be filed.

the applicable statutes of limitations there is no prejudice to the defendants.

allowed to be heard on those merits.

DATED: July 9, 2015

. Rosenblit, Attorney for Plaintiff,

Declaration of Joseph C. Rosenblit

Joseph C. Rosenblit (Bar No. 131663)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ORANGE COUNTY - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JM

Case No.: 30-2014-00748493-CU-CO-CJC

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:

Plaintiff Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JM Trust, an intervivos trust, (hereinafter

referred to as Plaintiff or MINER as context requires) through his counsel, based on

Complaint for Damages

brings this action against the following defendants: HUNTINGTON CONTINENTAL

TOWN HOUSE ASSOCIATION, INC., (hereinafter HUNTINGTON or

ASSOCIATION); RUSTAN P. LAINE (hereinafter LAINE); MYRA J. KUCK

(hereinafter KUCK); (DOE 1) FELDSOTT AND LEE, a law office (hereinafter

FELDSOTT-LEE); (DOE 2) STANLEY S. FELDSOTT (hereinafter FELDSOTT);

(DOE 3) JACQUELINE P. PAGANO, (hereinafter PAGANO); (DOE 4) TYLER J.

JONES (hereinafter JONES); KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY

MANAGEMENT, INC., (hereinafter KEYSTONE); CARY S. TREFF (hereinafter

TREFF); (DOE 5) ERICA L. GRIFFITH (hereinafter GRIFFITH); (DOE 6)

BRITTANY BENNETT (hereinafter BENNETT); (DOE 7) RENEE M. BARGER

(hereinafter BARGER); (DOE 8) CANE WALKER HARKINS LLP, a law office

(hereinafter CANE-WALKER); (DOE 9) JAMES C. HARKINS (hereinafter

HARKINS); and DOES 10 to 50, Inclusive, (individually and collectively,

Defendants), and alleges as follows:

This action, filed by the Plaintiff Joseph Miner, an owner of a separate

alleged violations of law and contract committed by a homeowner Association, members of

challenges the unjust enrichment of the Associations service providers: Feldsott-Lee,

Complaint for Damages

direct result of the assessment debt collection activities against plaintiff.

Service providers: Feldsott-Lee [exhibit #1 ], Cane-Walker [exhibit #2],

collection of Miners debt set forth herein.

scheme implemented by Feldsott-Lee, 2) the pre-foreclosure and collection scheme carried

While Association member-owners like Miner have many rights by law,

Orange County Superior Court civil case : 30-2011-00466754

Complaint for Damages

Plaintiff contends, because of the seemingly unlimited and perpetual financial

Associations own members have been damaged.

he was paid $60,000 on a $3,000 debt collection. [exhibit #4]