10000000881

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ARIAS
DOCSOC/1581520v1/200430-0003
PAUL R. GLASSMAN (State Bar No. 76536)
LAURA L. BUCHANAN (State Bar No. 156261)
KATHLEEN D. DeVANEY (State Bar No. 156444)
STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH
A Professional Corporation
100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 440
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (424) 214-7000
Facsimile: (424) 214-7010
E-mail: pglassman@sycr.com
lbuchanan@sycr.com
kdevaney@sycr.com

JAMES F. PENMAN (State Bar No. 91761)
CITY ATTORNEY
300 North D STREET, Sixth Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Telephone: (909) 384-5355
Facsimile: (909) 384-5238
E-mail: Penman_Ja@sbcity.org
Attorneys for Debtor
City of San Bernardino

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RIVERSIDE DIVISION
In re:
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
CALIFORNIA,
Debtor.
Case No. 6:12-BK-28006-MJ

Chapter 9

DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ARIAS IN
SUPPORT OF CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO'S
MEMORANDUM OF FACTS AND LAW IN
SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF
QUALIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 109(C)
OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ Doc 131 Filed 08/31/12 Entered 08/31/12 12:50:24 Desc
Main Document Page 1 of 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

I, JOSEPH ARIAS, declare:
1. I am an attorney admitted to practice in California and a managing
attorney in the law firm of Arias & Lockwood in San Bernardino. I have personal
knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration.
2. I was at the times referred to in this declaration, and am now, lead
counsel for the City of San Bernardino (City), a defendant in the following cases
now pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California
(USDC):
(a) J. A. et al v. City of San Bernardino et al., USDC No. 5:09-cv-01388-
JLQ-JC.
(b) Estate of Terry Nash et al. v. City of San Bernardino et al., USDC No.
2:09-cv-08671-RGK FFM.
3. In both cases, surviving family members of a deceased individual
alleged that the use of excessive force by officers of the Citys police department
caused the individuals death. The plaintiffs in both cases (collectively referred to in
this declaration as Plaintiffs) alleged violations of the decedents and Plaintiffs
civil rights and sought monetary damages under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. 1983
(section 1983). Plaintiffs were at the times referred to in this declaration, and are
now, represented by attorney Dale K. Galipo and his associates.
J.A. v. City
4. The J.A. case was originally filed in San Bernardino County Superior
Court in April 2009, but was removed to the USDC in July 2009. On January 12,
2012, the parties agreed to a settlement of the matter for $575,000. At that time, I
knew of no reason to believe that the City might be or become unable to pay the
settlement in full.
5. Since two of the plaintiffs in the J.A. case are minors, the settlement
required that the court approve a minors compromise. In addition, the proposed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

settlement called for the purchase of two annuities, one for each minor plaintiff.
The structured settlement representative, Mrs. Baldwin, told me to hold off on
payment until she put all the paperwork together, determined the specific payees,
and the exact amounts of the payments. The payments were proposed to be made to
two separate structured settlement companies. A third check was to be issued to Mr.
Galipo to cover his fees and costs and the shares of the adult plaintiffs. On March
15, 2012 the court ordered that the application for approval of the minors
compromise address several specified issues.
6. On March 28, 2012, the J.A. plaintiffs filed an application for court
approval of the compromise. On April 19, 2012 the court ordered the plaintiffs to
file a supplemental brief to address additional issues. More than a month later, on
May 23, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a response to the order.
7. On June 7, 2012, the court approved the compromise. The order of
approval directed that most of the funds to be paid to the minor plaintiffs be invested
in annuities for their benefit. The parties then began memorializing the settlement
in a formal settlement agreement and arranging with a structured settlement
company for the purchase of the annuities.
Nash v. City
8. The Nash case was filed in the USDC on November 24, 2009. The
case was tried in March 2011 to a verdict for the plaintiffs in the amount of
$2,005,000. However, the court granted a new trial on damages. The retrial
occurred in October 2011 and resulted in a verdict of $501,000.
9. An additional Monell phase of the trial was scheduled to determine
whether the City was liable under section 1983 or only under state law, which would
determine whether the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees. Before that phase of
the trial commenced, in May 2012, the parties agreed to a total settlement of
$686,000. Again, at that time, I knew of no reason to believe that the City might be
or become unable to pay the settlement in full.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Citys Nonpayment of Settlements
10. On July 11, 2012, I learned that on the preceding day the Citys
Common Council had authorized the filing of a Chapter 9 bankruptcy petition on the
Citys behalf. That same day, I advised Mr. Galipo by email that in light of the
bankruptcy authorization, the City would not be able to make the settlement
payments in the J.A. or Nash cases on the scheduled dates.
11. On July 16, 2012, I received a reply email from Mr. Galipos co-
counsel, John Fattahi, regarding the J.A. and Nash cases. The email demanded
immediate payment of the settlements in the two cases, further stating: If payment
is not tendered today, Plaintiffs intend to file ex parte applications to enforce the
terms of the settlement agreements and court order by compelling payment from the
Citys reserves for these cases, along with any attorneys fees, costs, and contempt
fines the court may deem appropriate. A true and correct copy of Mr. Fattahis
email is attached as Exhibit A.
12. The City did not make the payments within the time demanded in Mr.
Fattahis email. On July 23, 2012 in the J.A. case, and on July 24, 2012 in the Nash
case, Plaintiffs filed ex parte applications for orders to enforce the settlements. In
these applications, Plaintiffs sought orders requiring the City to disburse the
settlement funds within 24 hours. The City opposed the applications on the grounds
that given its financial distress, compelling it to pay the settlements would impair its
ability to continue to provide essential public services and potentially, its ability to
meet its payroll obligations. The City did not dispute that it had agreed to pay the
amounts claimed, and did not oppose the entry of judgments against it in those
amounts.
13. The courts in both the J.A. and Nash cases ordered that judgments be
entered against the City for the amounts claimed, but declined to order the City to
make the payments. True and correct copies of the courts orders in the J.A. and
Nash cases are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

14. In the J.A. case, the court stated in its order, dated July 27, 2012: The
Court is dismayed that the City has failed to honor its obligation under the
settlement agreement. The City represented on the record in January, 2012 that it
would make the settlement payment. The City offers no valid excuse for why it
failed to make payment in June after the terms of the minor settlement were
approved by the court. I attended the settlement conference at which the settlement
was reached. During that settlement conference, which was not before the judge
who issued this order, I did not make any statements about the Citys ability to pay
the settlement because I did not know it was an issue. The court further noted that
in a public statement on July 18, 2012, the City had represented in part that it had
continued to meet its financial obligations to vendors, creditors, and employees and
intended to continue to meet those obligations over time. The court stated: This is
not true concerning these settlements which in this case, includes monies on which
two very young children are dependent for their care, support, medical needs, food,
and housing.
15. The J.A. courts order concluded:
The court will direct entry of judgment, and Plaintiffs may pursue collection
of the judgment in accord with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The City cites
to provisions of California law concerning collection efforts against municipalities.
(ECF 159 p. 6-7). However, the City may not use State law to prevent collection of
a federal civil rights judgment. See Spain v. Mountanos, 690 F.2d 742, 746 (9th Cir.
1982)(We agree with the Fifth Circuit that a state cannot frustrate the intent of [42
U.S.C.] section 1988 by setting up state law barriers to block enforcement of an
attorneys fee award.). The Spain count [sic] continued by stating:
Ordinarily, the equitable remedies provided under Rule 70 are not
appropriate in enforcing a money judgment. However, under the
extraordinary circumstances where the judgment is against a state, which
refuses to appropriate funds through the normal process provided by state
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

law, the district court should not necessarily be reduced to satisfying a
judgment through the cumbersome procedure of attempting to execute against
state property or bank accounts. It may, instead, pursue any remedy provided
in Rule 69 or Rule 70 to enforce the award, including ordering state officials
to pay the claim.
Id. at 744-45 (internal citations omitted).
16. Spain v. Mountanos, 690 F.2d 742, the decision referred to by the court
in the J.A. case, had not been cited to the court by either the plaintiffs or the
defendants in that case.
17. On July 31, 2012, I received an email message from Thomas Seabaugh,
an associate of Mr. Galipo, regarding the J.A. and Nash cases, demanding payment
of the settlements in those cases. The message stated that if payment was not
tendered within 24 hours, Plaintiffs would initiate enforcement proceedings on an
emergency ex parte basis. The message continued:
We would seek, inter alia, a writ of execution under Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a) and a
writ of mandate under the California Government Code and Fed.R.Civ.P. 64,
in addition to interest from the date of settlement, penalties, and the full
amounts of any costs and attorneys fees incurred in the course of any
collection efforts that become necessary.
We do not find credible statements that there is no money in hand to
satisfy these judgments, in light of the Citys projected revenues in excess of
$120 million.
Mr. Seabaughs message further stated: We have already begun taking steps to
perfect liens against City property. A true and correct copy of Mr. Seabaughs
message is attached as Exhibit D.
///
///
///
1
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
2
America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August_, 2012, at -
3
San Bernardino, California.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-------------. -------------------------6- ----
DECLARA TION OF JOSEPH ARIAS
Exhibit A
Print
Case 5:09-cv-01388-JLQ-JC Document 158-1 Filed 07/23/ 12 Page 1 of 1
#:1882
Subject: Re: Allen v. oily of San Bernardino and Nash v. city of San Bernardino
From: John Fallahi Ofattahi@gmail.com)
To: joseph.arias@ariasiockwood.com; christopher.lockwood@ariaslockwood.com;
Cc: dalekgaiipo@yahoo.com;
Date: Monday, July 16, 201211:54AM
Mr. Arias,
Page 1 ofl
Page ID
Thank you for the email and please keep us informed regarding this unfortunate development. It is very concerning that the City
recently approved the settlements and is now suddenly claiming to be insolvent. As you know, one ofthe most important reasons why
the plaintiffs in both the Allen and Nash cases decided to settle was so they would receive the funds in a timely manner--certainly not 18
months from now. Complicating matters, the Allen funds were supposed to seed an annuity held by a life insurance company that is
obligated to pay oortain sums pursuant to the order approving the minors' compromise--including funds for the minors' fmancial support
If payment is not tendered today, Plaintiffs intend to file ex parte applications to enforce the terms of the settlement agreements and
court order by compelling payment from the City's reserves for these cases, along with any attorneys' fees, costs, and contempt fines the
courts may deem appropriate. First, I do not believe the obligations to pay would be dischargeable in banlauptcy, because they are for
an intentional tort (i.e., "willful and malicious injury" under the Bankruptcy Code). I have also conducted some preliminary research
on the preference issue, and I disagree that, even if the obligation were dischargeable, payment plU'suant to the settlement agreements
and order would constitute a preference. At a minimum, the "contemporaneous exchange for new/subsequent value" exception
would apply because the payments are consideration for full releases of Plaintiffs' claims and the dismissal of the cases,
which would obviously provide significant value to the City. In the alternative to full and immediate payment, Plaintiffs would
seek to rescind the agreements and restore the status quo due to unilateral and/or mutual mistake regarding the Clty's
claimed insolvency. Please let us know your positions regarding the foregoing by tomorrow at noon.
John C. Fattahi, Esq. I Law Office of John C. Fattahi 11010 N Central Ave, Glendale, CA 91202 I Office: +1.818.839.1983 I Fax:
+1.818.561.3600 I Email: jfattahi@gmail.com
The Information contained In this email is lnte.ndecl only for the personal and confidentlttl use of the redplentjs) numeu above. This message rnay be an attorneyclient
communios\1on and/or work product and as such Is privileged and confidential. lf.the reader of this message Is not the Intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering It to
the Intended reCipient, you are hereby notified thnt you have .receiVed this doc:ument In error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this Is strictly
prohibited. It you have received this wmmuniatlon In error, please notify ItS immediately by email, and delete the original message.
On Wed, Julll, 2012 at 2:12PM, Joseph Arias <josepli.arias@ariaslockwood.com> wrote:
Dale,
I regret to inform you the City will not be issuing the settlement checks for these cases on the scheduled dates, or any time in the near
future, if at all. As I am sure you have heard by now, the City Council authorized the city attorney to initiate bankruptcy proceedings
immediately. As I understand it, even if the city had sufficient reserves to make the payments in these cases, it is unable to do so
because under bankruptcy law, any payments made within a specified time period before the bankruptcy petition is filed, would be
considered a preference and therefore unlawful. Such payments would be set aside. I understand the bankruptcy proceedings are
going to take about 18 months. I'm going to be meeting with the bankruptcy attorney in the days ahead and will have more
information. For now this is all I know.
Joseph Arias
Arias & Lockwood
225 West Hospitality Laue, Ste. 314
San Berllardino, CA 92408
Te1: .909-890-0125
Fox: 909-890-0185

.. -"-.. -------------- -----
Exhibit B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DIVISION
J.A., et al., )
)
) No. EDCV 09-01388-JLQ
Plaintiffs, )
) ORDER RE: MOTION TO
) ENFORCE SETTLEMENT
vs. )
)
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________ )
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs Motion for an Order Enforcing Court-
Approved Settlement. (ECF No. 158). Defendant City of San Bernardino (City) has
filed an opposition brief and supporting declaration. (ECF No. 160, 162). The Court
heard argument on the Motion telephonically on July 26, 2012. Plaintiffs were
represented by Dale Galipo. Defendants were represented by Joseph Arias and
Christopher Lockwood.
I. Background
The parties reached a settlement agreement in this matter on January 12, 2012
before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian. (ECF No. 147)in which the City of San
Bernardino (City) agreed to pay the sum of $575,000 in full settlement of this action
resulting from the shooting death of the nineteen year-old father of two very young
children, one of whom was not yet born at the time of the fathers death. The terms of
the settlement were entered on the record in this United States District Court , subject to
the City obtaining final approval from the City Council, which it did on January 23,
2012. The petition for approval of minor settlement and supporting documents were
ORDER - 1
Case 5:09-cv-01388-JLQ-JC Document 163 Filed 07/27/12 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:1902 Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ Doc 131 Filed 08/31/12 Entered 08/31/12 12:50:24 Desc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
filed on March 28, 2012, and the court entered its Order of final approval of the
settlement on June 7, 2012.
II. Discussion
The Motion requests that this Court enter Judgment against the City in the amount
of the settlement and order that the City make payment within 24 hours. Plaintiffs argue
such expediency is necessary because the City has indicated that it will be filing a
Chapter 9 bankruptcy. The City admits that it has failed to make payment under the
settlement agreement and does not object to the entry of judgment. (ECF No. 160, p.
2)(The City does not dispute that it agreed to pay the settlement amount and does not
oppose the entry of a judgment against it in that amount which conforms to the terms of
the settlement...). However the City does object to being ordered to make payment
within 24 hours for the reasons that the City is allegedly experiencing a fiscal emergency
and contends that if it were to pay the $575,000 now such payment would, inter alia,
constitute a preferential transfer that could be voided by the Trustee during the
bankruptcy proceeding and such a payment would result in the City not being able to pay
the salaries of its employees.
The Court is dismayed that the City has failed to honor its obligation under the
settlement agreement. The City represented on the record in January, 2012 that it would
make the settlement payment. The City offers no valid excuse for why it failed to make
payment in June after the terms of the minor settlement were approved by the court. The
courts Order (ECF No.156, p. 3) provided in part that a portion of the funds were to be
distributed to provide for the immediate needs of the minor Plaintiffs. (emphasis
added). According to counsel for the City, Mr. Arias, he was unaware that the City was
having any financial trouble until early-July.
Defendants discuss in their briefing, and the court takes judicial notice that the
City is refusing to make payment of two other settlement obligations. In Jackson v. City
of San Bernardino, CV-09-8671, the City agreed to pay $686,000 on May 30, 2012.
ORDER - 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Additionally, in May v. City of San Bernardino, CV-10-978, the City agreed to a
settlement of $200,000 in the midst of trial in December 2012. Despite that settlement
agreement being made 7 months ago, and the terms of the minor settlement being
approved in June, the City has not paid the agreed upon monies.
The Citys public statement concerning its fiscal emergency and impending
bankruptcy filing (ECF No. 158-2) states in part that: As of this date [July 18, 2012],
it has continued to meet its financial obligations to vendors, creditors, and employees
and intends to continue to meet those obligations over time. This is not true concerning
these settlements which in this case, includes monies on which two very young children
are dependent for their care, support, medical needs, food, and housing.
From the argument of counsel, it appears the parties did not specifically agree at
the time settlement was reached before a United States Magistrate Judge as to a specific
date for the payment of the agreed upon settlement funds. In general, courts expect a
party to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement when entered. Similarly, the
court would expect prompt compliance with its Order of June 7, 2012, particularly when
the settlement expenditure had been approved by the City Council in January, 2012.
The court will direct entry of judgment, and Plaintiffs may pursue collection of the
judgment in accord with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The City cites to
provisions of California law concerning collection efforts against municipalities. (ECF
159 p. 6-7). However, the City may not use State law to prevent collection of a federal
civil rights judgment. See Spain v. Mountanos, 690 F.2d 742, 746 (9 Cir. 1982)(We
th
agree with the Fifth Circuit that a state cannot frustrate the intent of [42 U.S.C.] section
1988 by setting up state law barriers to block enforcement of an attorneys fee award.).
The Spain count continued by stating:
Ordinarily, the equitable remedies provided under Rule 70 are not appropriate in
enforcing a money judgment. However, under the extraordinary circumstances
where the judgment is against a state, which refuses to appropriate funds through
the normal process provided by state law, the district court should not necessarily
be reduced to satisfying a judgment through the cumbersome procedure of
ORDER - 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
attempting to execute against state property or bank accounts. It may, instead,
pursue any remedy provided in Rule 69 or Rule 70 to enforce the award, including
ordering state officials to pay the claim.
Id. at 744-45 (internal citations omitted).
Counsel for the City asked that judgment be entered only against the City,
contending that the settlement agreement is only with the City. Presumably, the claims
against the individual Officers Gray and Affrunti would be dismissed if the City fulfills
it obligations under the settlement agreement. It is undisputed, and the court so finds,
that the City has failed to make payment under the terms of the settlement agreement and
is in breach thereof. The court will direct entry of judgment against the City in the
amount of $575,000. The court finds no just reason for delay per Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
The claims against Officers Gray and Affrunti remain pending. The court retains
jurisdiction to enforce and effectuate its judgment. The court also retains jurisdiction
over the pending claims against Officers Gray and Affrunti.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs Motion (ECF No. 158) is granted in part and denied in part. The
court finds it is appropriate to enforce the settlement and will direct entry of judgment
against the City.
2. The Clerk shall enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant
City of San Bernardino on the claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint in the
amount of $575,000.00. Interest shall accrue on the Judgment from the date of final
approval of the settlement, June 7, 2012, at the statutory rate. When the City makes
payment the funds shall be allocated in accord with the Courts Memorandum Opinion
and Order Approving Compromise of Minors Claims. (ECF No. 156).
3. The court finds no just reason for delay, and the Judgment against the City is
a final judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The claims against Officers Affrunti and Gray
remain pending.
ORDER - 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The Clerk shall file this Order, enter Judgment as directed above, and furnish
copies to counsel.
Dated this 27thday of July, 2012.
s/ Justin L. Quackenbush
JUSTIN L. QUACKENBUSH
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ORDER - 5
Exhibit C
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. CV 09-08671-RGK (FFMx) Date July 26, 2012
Title SHERYL JACKSON v. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO et al.
Present: The
Honorable
R. GARY KLAUSNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
S. Williams (Not Present) Not Reported N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present Not Present
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application to
Enforce Settlement Agreement (DE 340)
The Court grants in part Plaintiffs Ex Parte Application for Order Enforcing Settlement
Agreement. The Court finds that Defendant City of San Bernardino is in breach of the
settlement agreement and therefore orders that judgment be entered forthwith against
Defendant in the amount of $686,000.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of
Preparer
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1
Case 2:09-cv-08671-RGK -FFM Document 343 Filed 07/26/12 Page 1 of 1 Page ID
#:5714
Exhibit D
I
I
Page 1 of2
Christopher Lockwood
From: Thomas Seabaugh [tseabaugh@galipolaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31 , 2012 1:37 PM
To: joseph.arias@ariaslockwood.com; christopher.lockwood@ariaslockwood.com
Cc: Adrienne Quarry; Adrienne Quarry; John Fattahi; dalekgalipo@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Allen, Nash
Gentlemen:
In light of the judgments that have recently been entered in Allen and Nash, we ask that you please
inform us within the next 24 hours of your intentions, specifically with regard to immediate payment. If
we do not hear from you, and payment is not tendered within 24 hours, we plan to initiate enforcement
proceedings in each case on an emergency ex parte basi s. We would seek, inter alia, writs of execution
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a) and writs of mandate under the California Government Code and Fed.R.Civ.P.
64, in addition to interest from the date of settlement, penalties, and the full amounts of any costs and
attorneys' fees incurred in the course of any collection efforts that become necessary.
We do not find credible statements that there is no money in hand to satisfy these judgments, in light of
the city's projected revenues in excess of $120 million. We also believe that funds to satisfy these
judgments would have been and should have been set aside and earmarked upon approval of these
settlements by the City Council.
We are not concerned that any payments to plaintiffs in these cases would be set aside as a preferences
in any future bankruptcy proceedings, in light of Lewis v. Diethorn, 893 F.2d 648 (3d Cir. 1990) (Debtor's
prepetition payment to settle lawsuit was not preferential transfer subject to avoidance).
We have already begun taking steps to perfect liens against City property. We also intend, where
applicable, to proceed to trial against the individual officers. Finally, we are considering whether Rule 11
sanctions are appropriate against the City as a litigant by reason of its conduct during settlement
negotiations.
We regret that it has come to this. Neverthel ess, we stil l remain hopeful that we will soon hear that the
City intends to disburse immediately the funds that were promised and approved.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Seabaugh, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO
21800 Burbank Boulevard, Suite 310
Woodland Hills, California 91637
Telephone: (818) 347-3333
Facsimile: {818) 347-4118
NOTICE: This email and any attachments may be confidential and privi leged. If received in error, please
contact us and delete all copies.
Thomas C. Seabaugh, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DALE K. GALIPO
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/27/2012
This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California.
June 2012 F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE
DOCSOC/1580973v1/200430-0003
PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is:
100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 440, Santa Monica, CA 90401.
A true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled: DECLARATION OF JOSEPH ARIAS IN SUPPORT OF CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO'S MEMORANDUM OF FACTS AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF
QUALIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 109(C) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE will be served or was served (a) on the
judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner stated below:
1. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF): Pursuant to controlling General
Orders and LBR, the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On August
31, 2012, I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the
following persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated below:
Jerrold Abeles abeles.jerry@arentfox.com
Joseph M Adams jadams@lawjma.com
Andrew K Alper aalper@frandzel.com, efiling@frandzel.com;ekidder@frandzel.com
Thomas V Askounis taskounis@askounisdarcy.com
Anthony Bisconti tbisconti@bmkattorneys.com
Jeffrey E Bjork jbjork@sidley.com
Sarah C Boone sboone@marshackhays.com, ecfmarshackhays@gmail.com
J Scott Bovitz bovitz@bovitz-spitzer.com
Jeffrey W Broker jbroker@brokerlaw.biz
Deana M Brown dbrown@milbank.com
Michael J Bujold Michael.J.Bujold@usdoj.gov
Christina M Craige ccraige@sidley.com
Alex Darcy adarcy@askounisdarcy.com
Susan S Davis sdavis@coxcastle.com
Robert H Dewberry robert.dewberry@dewlaw.net
Todd J Dressel dressel@chapman.com, lubecki@chapman.com
Chrysta L Elliott elliottc@ballardspahr.com, manthiek@ballardspahr.com
Scott Ewing contact@omnimgt.com, sewing@omnimgt.com
Paul R. Glassman pglassman@sycr.com
Everett L Green everett.l.green@usdoj.gov
Chad V Haes chaes@marshackhays.com, ecfmarshackhays@gmail.com
James A Hayes jhayes@cwlawyers.com
M Jonathan Hayes jhayes@hayesbklaw.com,
roksana@hayesbklaw.com;carolyn@hayesbklaw.com;elizabeth@hayesbklaw.com
D Edward Hays ehays@marshackhays.com, ecfmarshackhays@gmail.com
Eric M Heller eric.m.heller@irscounsel.treas.gov
Bonnie M Holcomb bonnie.holcomb@doj.ca.gov
Whitman L Holt wholt@ktbslaw.com
Michelle C Hribar mch@sdlaborlaw.com
Steven J Katzman SKatzman@bmkattorneys.com
Jane Kespradit jane.kespradit@limruger.com, amy.lee@limruger.com
Mette H Kurth kurth.mette@arentfox.com
Richard A Marshack rmarshack@marshackhays.com,
lbergini@marshackhays.com;ecfmarshackhays@gmail.com
Gregory A Martin gmartin@winston.com
David J Mccarty dmccarty@sheppardmullin.com, pibsen@sheppardmullin.com
DOCSOC/1580973v1/200430-0003
Reed M Mercado rmercado@sheppardmullin.com
Aron M Oliner roliner@duanemorris.com
Scott H Olson solson@seyfarth.com
Dean G Rallis drallis@sulmeyerlaw.com
Christopher O Rivas crivas@reedsmith.com
Kenneth N Russak krussak@frandzel.com, efiling@frandzel.com;dmoore@frandzel.com
Gregory M Salvato gsalvato@salvatolawoffices.com, calendar@salvatolawoffices.com
Mark C Schnitzer mschnitzer@rhlaw.com, mschnitzer@verizon.net
Benjamin Seigel bseigel@buchalter.com, IFS_filing@buchalter.com
Diane S Shaw diane.shaw@doj.ca.gov
Jason D Strabo jstrabo@mwe.com, losangelestrialdocket@mwe.com
Matthew J Troy matthew.troy@usdoj.gov
United States Trustee (RS) ustpregion16.rs.ecf@usdoj.gov
Anne A Uyeda auyeda@bmkattorneys.com
Annie Verdries verdries@lbbslaw.com
Brian D Wesley brian.wesley@doj.ca.gov
Service information continued on attached page
2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL:
On _____________, I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known addresses in this bankruptcy case or
adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope in the United States mail, first class,
postage prepaid, and addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judge will
be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed.
3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, OVERNIGHT MAIL, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL (state method
for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on August 31, 2012, I served the
following persons and/or entities by personal delivery, overnight mail service, or (for those who consented in writing to
such service method), by facsimile transmission and/or email as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration
that personal delivery on, or overnight mail to, the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is
filed.
Honorable Meredith A. Jury (Personal Delivery)
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
3420 Twelfth Street, Suite 325 / Courtroom 301
Riverside, CA 92501-3819
Everett L Green (Personal Delivery)
Office of the US Trustee
3685 Main St Ste 300
Riverside, CA 92501
Twenty Largest Creditors:
Served on counsel via NEF:
2006 City of San Bernardino Taxable Pension Obligation Bonds, 2005, Series A
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Corporate Trust Services Special Accounts Group -
Jerrold Abeles abeles.jerry@arentfox.com
Mette H Kurth kurth.mette@arentfox.com
DOCSOC/1580973v1/200430-0003
Kohl's Corporate Offices
N56 W17000 Ridgewood Drive
Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin 53051
Scott H Olson solson@seyfarth.com
US Bank, N.A., Trustee
633 West 5th Street, 24th Floor,
Los Angeles, California 90071
Jason D Strabo jstrabo@mwe.com, losangelestrialdocket@mwe.com
California Infrastructure Bank and Economic Development Bank
980 9th Street, Suite 900
Sacramento, California 95814
Diane Shaw diane.shaw@doj.ca.gov
Marquette Bank,
10000 W 151ST ST,
Orland Park, Illinois 60462
Thomas V Askounis taskounis@askounisdarcy.com
[The remainder of the List of 20 Largest Creditors are being served by the official claims agent; a separate proof of service
will be filed]
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.
August 31, 2012 Christine Pesis /s/ Christine Pesis
Date Printed Name Signature

10000000881

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

10000000881

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

You might also like