> > og Case A1SO64Z,_ « aG\S 71680) (Superior Court Case No. RG15-796301) 6 anv Qvands ALAMEDA COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF APR 20 2017 COURT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA om Sm — FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT Denar DIVISION ONE | MEAGHAN KEEGAN Plaintiff and Appellant ve MARCIA QUARLE and DANIEL E. KANER Defendants and Respondents APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. CASE No. RGIS-706301 ‘THE HONORABLE JUDGE JULIA SPAIN DEPARTMENT 19 APPEAL FROM COURT JUDGMENT OF THE SUPERIOR’ COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA | STATEMENT OF DECISION OF JANUARY 31, 2017 (UNDERLYING CASE No. RG10-537233) RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE APPEAL Marcia Quarie Defendant/Cross-Compiaint 651 Addison Street Suite 210 Berkeley, CA 94730 Telephone: 510 621-9225 Email: paralegal2@me.com Attorney for Defendant Respondentv & Keegan appeals the.dismissal with prejudice of the UFTA lawsuit. Keegan asserts that the court “erroneously erred when not allowing her to file a third amended complaint and thereby destroyed the meaningful due process that she was supposed to be entitled to” when it held’a 1/31/17 “sua sponte case management conference without notice dismissing the action.” Attached to this brief is an excerpt of the transcript of the 1/26/17 hearing held in Department 19 at 2:30 p.m. Keegan's Designation of Record fails to provide the court with an adequate record, Therefore she has not met her burden of overcoming the presumed correctness of the challenged orders by affirmatively demonstrating error. MOTION TO AUGUMENT THE RECORD BY FILING AN “AMENDED DESIGNATION OF RECORD” ON 3/29/17 In Keegan's “Amended Designation” she seeks to augment the record with the following unauthenticated documents, copies of which she has submitted with her “amended designation”: 1) certain purported emails between Gary tee Sherrer and skykicks@hotmail.com. Skykicks@hotmail.com is Craig Ted Rawson the subject of a State Bar Complaint for Unauthorized Practice of Law. On 1/27/17 Rawson emailed Sherrer: Subject: Contest Tentative Ruling Keegan v. Quarle stating “because the underlying statue provides for attorney fees, we can seek them in the underlying case.” The date before prior to the commencement of the 1/26/17 2:30 PM hearing Sherrer emailed Keegan and Rawson “So I'm Preparing for drama at 2:30. We are entitled to $6000 plus post judgment interest at 10% per annum should be around $1250.” Sherrer’s late inclusion of various email communications, which is not supported by any declaration authenticating the attached emails is improper. Sherrer asserts these emails are part of the appellate record because they show that he believes he is entitled to attorney fees. | ask the court to strike these emails to avoid a repeat of Keegan's 2015 appeal where multiple unauthenticated emails were included in Keegan’s designation of record. Nothing in the face of these emails attached indicates that they were filed or attached to any pleading ‘or motion in the super court proceedings.” Quarle asserts the emails attached 1~ & have not been properly authenticated and they are not consecutively numbered in violation of Rule 8.155. Quarle argues that Keegan has “engaged in an inordinate delay” in seeking to augment the record and she has not “demonstrated good.cause for the one month delay (2/27/17 to 3/29/17). Also Sherrer fails to make any showing that the emails he seeks to add have any relevance to any issue on appeal. Analysis Rule 8.155(a) (1) (A) provides that “on motion of a party the reviewing court may order the record augmented to include: any document filed or lodged in the case in the super court.” “Augmentation does not function to supplement the record with materials not before the trial court.” Vons Companies, inc. vs. Seabest Foods, inc.(1996) 14 Cal 4"" 434, 444, fn.3) Here Sherrer has presented no evidence that the unauthenticated documents he seeks to include in.the appellate record through augmentation were “filed or lodged in the case in the superior court” as required by rule 8.155(a) (1) (A). As Keegan filed to comply with the requirements of rule 8.155, her “amended Designation of Record” should be stricken or denied, Keegan failed to provide an adequate record on appeal. She elected to use a Clerk’s Transcript of the oral proceedings held on 1/26/17. He failed to include the moving and opposing papers, including any papers or exhibits that the parties submitted in connection with the discovery motions of 1/26/17. Furthermore Sherrer’s erroneous claim that a CMC was held on 1/31/17 fails to comply with rule 8.204(a) (1) (C) under which he is required to “support any reference to a mater in the record” in his amended designation of record with a “citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matters appears. It is the litigant’s duty to point out portions of the record that support he positions on appeal. The appellate court is not required to search the record on its own seeking error. Sherrer’s claim that there was a “sua sponte 1/31/17 case management conference where the case was dismissed with prejudice” is subject to sanctions because it affirmatively misstates the record. There was no 2° C CMC on 1/31/17, the court merely entered the order it advised Sherrer in open court it was going to do. On 12/10/15 Meaghan Keegan filed a complaint against Marcia Quarle and her son, Daniel Kaner, for a purported Fraudulent Transfer. The court ultimately concluded there was no evidence of damages and that the lawsuit was a “plainly meritless fraudulent-transfer action that, while nominally related to the collection of the ($6000) judgment, seems primarily intended to use the litigation process to harass Quarle and attempt to expose her to sanctions for her frequent violations of discovery obligations and court rules.” (Page 5 of Minute Order of 1/26/17) Subjective Bad Faith “Subjective bad faith may be inferred by evidence that appellant intends to cause unnecessary delay, filed the action to harass respondents, or harbored an improper motive”. All three factors are present here. Keegan’s attorney, Gary Lee Sherrer objected to the Court’s decision to stay the action “until Keegan has exhausted in good faith suitable collection efforts in the underlying action, case RG10537233.” The court concluded that the “current action is unjustifiably consuming vast amounts of judicial and court resources for a dispute in which both parties seem to be motivated primarily by personal animus and a desire to use the litigation process to harass one another.” (P. 4-5 of Minute Order, supra) Quarle Paid the $6000 Judgment plus Interest in Full in Open Court on’ 1/26/17 The 1/26/17 Minute Order starts: “The Court witnessed in open court Ms. Quarle handing Mr. Sherrer two cashier's checks one in the amount of $6000.00 and one in the amount of $1,200.00 payable to Meaghan Keegan and cash in the amount of $91.00. The court ordered Mr. Sherrer to serve and file under case number RG10537233, a Notice of Acknowledgement of Full Satisfaction of Judgment no later than January 30, 2017...Upon receipt of an endorsed filed courtesy copy of thev © Acknowledgement of Full Satisfaction of Judgment, Court will dismiss with prejudice case number RG15796301. (Minute Order of 1/26/17) Déja Vu of Appeal 1 of Case RG10-537233 On 5/14/15 Paul R. Turley filed Keegan’s Designation of record and wrote the basis of Keegan's Appeal was: 1) “Plaintiff is appeal the court’s finding of 4 violations (of CIPA tape recording without permission) due to defendant’s admission of over 40 violations” 2) Plaintiff is appealing Court, on its own motion denying Plaintiff's costs. Objective Bad Fai Appeal Sherrer falsely claims in his late-filed Amended Designation of Record that he had “no notice of the 1/31/17 sua. sponte Case Management Conference”. Sherrer implies the court violated Keegan's “right to due process in staying the case and dismissing the current case with prejudice because “he did not have notice of the 1/31/17 “hearing” and he was unaware that the “cout would dismiss the case with prejudice” after he filed the Notice and Acknowledgement of Full Satisfaction of Judgment on 1/30/17. Keegan states the appeal is being taken from a judgment or order with a date of entry of 1/31/17. Sherrer states he had “no notice of the hearing of 1/31/17”. Sherrer did not file a Motion to Set Aside the Dismissal of 1/31/17. Sherrer never filed a Motion for Attorney Fees. To begin with the record shows that Gary Sherrer was present in Court on 1/26/17 when Judge Spain told him three times that the current case would be dismissed with prejudice. Sherrer suggests numerous claims of unethical behavior against Judge Spain. These claims are conclusory and devoid of any factual basis. Sherrer never moved for attorney's fees under CCP Section 685.040 which authorizes a judgment creditor to recover fees in enforcing a judgment if the underlying judgment included an award of fees as costs. In Case RG10537233, Judge Bereola granted Quarle’s Motion to Tax Costs. Sherrer admits in his recent Motion to Tax Quarle’s Costs 4 ee° c that “UFTA does not provide for attorney fees and that there is no underlying contract between Quarle and Keegan that provides for attorney fees.” Lack of Jurisdiction The general rule is that a Court of Appeal cannot review award/denial of attorney fees made after an entry of judgment, unless the order is separately appealed. “A post judgment order. which awards or denies costs or attorney fees is separately appealable. If no appeal is taken from such an order, the appellate court has no jurisdiction to review it. Since all Sherrer presents in his Notice of Appeal is an email exchange between Sherrer and Keegan's long-time ghost writer, non-attorney, Craig Rawson claiming on 1/27/17 that Sherrer should “Contest the 1/26/17 Order because we are entitled to attorney fees.” Rawson a defunct Califiornia LLC does business and PPSLLC or Professional Paralegal Services LLC. Sherrer also included an email in his contesting of Judge Spain's ruling admitting “the court is of the opinion that Keegan should have exhausted remedies in the underlying case which would have waived risking him UFTA claims and potentially barred the same by the statute of limitations.” In fact the UFTA case was always barred by the four year statute of limitations and Keegan mislead the court as to when she first became aware of the transfer. On 10/22/10 Quarle filed and Recorded the Transfer of 105 Starview Court to Daniel E. Kaner with the Alameda County Recorder's Office. Keegan even attended one of the 12 open houses held in 2012 when the property was on the market, listed by Grubb and Ellis. In Gray1 CPB, LLC vs. SCC Acquisitions, Inc. 225-Cal. App.4"" 401 (2014) the DCA held that acceptance of a cashier’s check for the full amount of an outstanding judgment precluded the later filing of a motion for attorney’ fees incurred in trying to enforce the judgment. The Supreme Court, however granted review and remanded for reconsideration in light of the decision in Conservatorship of McQueen, 59 Cal 4" 602 (2014). There the supreme court stated that if payment of a judgment is by certified check, the “acceptance of which arguably constitutes satisfaction, the judgment creditor retains at least the 5. © ww option of rejecting the certified check and filing the motion or memorandum for enforcement costs and fees.” On reconsideration in Gray1, the judgment creditor argued that its refusal to deposit the cashier’s check until AFTER filing a motion for enforcement fees was the equivalent of rejecting the check. The court of appeal disagreed, holding that the creditor “accepted and subsequently cashed the cashier’s check” and “cannot claim it did not accept the check because it wanted more money than the check for was for.” Gray1 CPB LLC vs. SCC Acquisitions Inc., 233 Cal.App.4hy 882, 182 Cal.Rprt 3d 654 (2015). In this case, Keegan never filed a Motion for Enforcement Fees, or a Motion for Reconsideration. Instead she filed “emails between Sherrer and Craig Rawson a Non Attorney and the subject of a Bar Complaint for Unauthorized Practice of law) Advice to Gary Lee Sherrer: When you are seeking to enforce a judgment and you believe you are entitled to recover attorney's fees in enforcing that judgment, don’t wait until the very end to request your fees. Sherrer accepted Quarle’s checks, Keegan deposited them and the voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a judgment or order is a bar to the prosecution.of an appeal therefrom. In court on 1/26/17 Sherrer did not state: “no thank you, I need to make a motion for attorney fees first It is case law that a motion for post judgment costs (including attorney fees) must be made kefore the judgment is satisfied in full” (Section 65.080 sub. (A). Sherrer’s appeal will be denied because any “motion for attorney fees must be brought BEFORE the judgment is paid in full. It is true that the judgment was issued on 12/2/14 and that Quarle made no payments on the judgment until 1/26/17. Judge Spain ordered him to file a full satisfaction of judgment. Now today is April 11, 2017 and it is 3 plus months after 1/26/17 and any motion for costs are untimely. Keegan's appeal is untimely. There is no Underlying contract containing an attorney fees provision between Keegan and Quarle (Civil Code 1717) There is no dispute concerning Keegan's right to timely seek reasonable attorney fees as costs in efforts to enforce the judgment. That having been said any motion for such costs must be timely made before the underlying judgment has been full satisfied. This is to avoid a situation where a judgment debtor has 6 e~f c paid off the entirety of the justifiably believes to be her obligation inthe entire case only to be confronted later with a motion for more fees (see Lucky United Properties Investment inc. vs. Lee) This is the present situation. Keegan may claim that Quarle did not “full satisfy the judgment because the amount tendered did not include the attorney fees Keegan incurred in attempting to,enforce its judgment by bring the Fraudulent Transfer Action. Keegan relies on Heimstadt vs. tapered Parts Inc. (1957 155 Cal.App 2d 711 claiming California Public Policy requires a judgment debtor to pay the judgment as well as reasonably incurred attorney fees in an effort to collect the judgment. Heimstadt is not direct on point and in fact it is inapposite. Here the judgment was fully satisfied when Sherrer accepted Quarle’s cashier's checks on 1/26/17 and confirmed when Sherrer filed on 1/301/7 the Notice of Acknowledgement of Satisfaction of Judgment. w Therefore any Motion for Postjdugment Attorney Fees is Untimely. This Appeal is Untimely As the McQueen court recognized, the statute requiring motions for attorney fees to be made before the judgment is satisfied in full “serves a public policy of its own, to prevent unfair surprise to the judgment debtor.” (Conservatorship of McQueen, supra, 59 Cal.4” at p. 615) Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a March 8, 2017 letter | sent to California State Bar in Case 17—01152. The case involves fee splitting with Craig Rawson and Sherrer’s illegal back dating of discovery responses in this lawsuit. The:case is assigned to Ethics Investigators Jay Beuteyn. The March 8, 2017 letter includes for pages an unauthenticated transcript of the hearing of 1/26/17 in Department 19. Present in Court were Judge Julia Spain, Marcia Quarle, Gary Lee Sherrer and Ana Liza Tumonong and a Deputy who handed Mr. Sherrer Quarle’s checks. In fact | asked Judge Spain to repeat exactly what she ordered Sherrer to do: | quote from the transcript: Judge Spain: He is ordered to file a Satisfaction of Judgment in Full by Monday.7S 7 w Sherrer: So the satisfaction of judgment is to be filed in the RG10537233 case? Spain: Yes in the case where the judgment was entered. Sherrer: And then is the court going to, on its own motion, going to dismiss the pending mater? Spain: That's right and our minutes are going to.reflet that we all witnessed Ms. Quarle give counsel a $6000 cashier's check, a $1200 cashier’s check and a personal check in the amount of $90.14 and so that concludes the matter, Quarle: |.have some cash, | can give him this $90.14 now. Judge Spain: Excellent, so | am ordering you to file this satisfaction of judgment by tomorrow (1/27/17)... Sherrer; Can | have until Monday to file it? | know | have other criminal maters tomorrow. Quarle: Here is $91.00 cash Judge Spain: If you need fourteen cents, | will chip it in myself. Quarle: | can give him a dollar. Spain: | want to see a Satisfaction of Judgment in Full filed'in Case RG10537233 by Monday and if that does not happen | will file it myself. Sherrer: | will make sure that happens Judge. Judge Spain: Okay as as soon as that’s done, | will dismiss the current action with prejudice, which means it can’t be refiled at all. Okay and then | sincerely hpe that Ms. Keegan and Ms. Quarle will never have any more contact with one another and (that) this matter will be finally put to bed and to rest. Therefore Quarle seeks to strike the late inclusion of unauthenticated emails in Keegan's late filed Designation of Record. 8w Respectfully submitted, arcra Avon By: MARCIA QUARLE, Respondent* MARCIA QUARLE 651 ADDISON Street Suite 210 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: '510 621-9225 Email: paralegal2@me.com March 8, 2017 State Bar of California Office of Chief Trial Counsel The State Bar of California 845 S. Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017-2515 March 8, 2017 To: State Bar of California Attention: Investigator Jay Buteyn and Deputy Trial Counsel Lauren Williams Re: Case 17-0-01152 (formerly case 17-01731) Ethics Complaint against Attorney Gary Lee Sherrer, BAR # 113047 Name of Attorn Address: 875 A Island Drive # 403, Alameda California In response to the State Bar’s Letter of March 1, 2017 I am supplementing my Complaint. - Today is March 8, 2017 and I am continuing my complaint against attorney Gary Lee Sherrer. As I indicated in my Letter of February 11, 2017, Judge Julia Spain dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit entitled Keegan v. Quarle, Case RG15796301. On 1/26/17 in Open Court I paid in full the entire judgment plus interest in the underlying Case, RG10-537233. Attached is the 5 page Minute Order of the 1/26/17 Hearing. Mr. Sherrer contested the Tentative Ruling in which Judge Spain ordered Case RG15796301 stayed because Ms. Keegan had not exhausted her underlying remedies. (Prior to filing Case RG15796301, Ms. Keegan never served me with any post judgment interrogatories, or an OEX. Gary Sherrer contested the Tentative Ruling. In fact Meaghan Keegan filed an untimely UFTA lawsuit claiming I transferred my home to my son without consideration (on 10/22/10!). The entire case was filed for harassment because I sold the property at issue for $751,000 on 8/31/12 to unrelated third parties, Diane and Majeed ' Seifi and there ‘was no “fraudulent conveyance.” I attach a copy of the Note and Deed of Trust of 8/31/12. JUDGE SPAIN: I understand Mr, Sherrer you wish to be heard.~ & SHERRER: Code of Civil Procedure Section 187 is not designed to remedy the problem caused by a creditor, and having researched the matter I can’t find any case where the court has applied ection 187 in a situation similar to what we face. My position is given my due process argument it is inappropriate to do so and in doing so, the court is denying Ms. Keegan all of the avenues available to her to ‘collect the judgment that is outstanding (in case RG10-573233 (note judgment was for $6000.00 rendered on 12/2/14). .There is a due process argument the court is denying Ms. Keegan all of the vehicles available for her to collect the judgment and that is (unfair). JUDGE SPAIN: Let me understand this. How am I denying her an OEX when I ordered her to have one? All I am doing is shutting off one avenue which I think, frankly think, is completely inappropriate because she (Ms. Keegan) has not exhausted her underlying remedies before filing [case RG15796301 was filed on 12/10/15) Sherrer: “if she had exhausted her underlying remedies before filing the instant action, it is highly likely that she would have missed the statute of limitations for this action. “As I understand the process she just barely made it as it was and that is one of defendant’s main argument that she did in fact (blow the statute of limitations). [Comment the entire case was barred by the four year Statute of Limitations] SPAIN: No. I am shutting down one avenue Sherrer: I understand the court’s position and the plaintiff’s position is that this is an inappropriate denial of due process to the plaintiff given the circumstances of this case. Because I think by shutting down this action, you do'deny Ms. Keegan the ability to seek and recover punitive damages, you deny her the ability to seek and recover attorney fees. You essentially limit her to whatever the judgment is and the interest that is accrued on the judgment, by staying these proceedings.” Judge Spain: Anything further? Sherger: I just want to point out the fact, the court was in making its decision that there is a proof issue with respect to money retained by Kaner (Quarle’s son) from the sale (of 8/31/12)© and I believe defendant has filed all of her discovery responses and in Request For Admissions No.6 she makes a statement that Mr. Kaner received a portion of the proceeds from the sale and that I don’t believe has been addressed in any of the paperwork. Quarle: What amount? JUDGE SPAIN: Who cares if he got a portion, as long as she’s got more than $6000.00 that is all you should care about? Mr. Green (the Bailiff in Dept. 19) pleases approach. Now here in open court Mr. Sherrer I am handing you a cashier's check in the amount of $6000.00 it is tendered as a partial settlement of the amount that is owed in the previous judgment. I direct you to file a partial satisfaction of judgment in the amount of $6000.00. QUARLE: I have an additional cashier's check... JUDGE SPAIN. I want a courtesy copy sent to this court and as soon as I see that I will dismiss Ms. Keegan’s most recent action, RG15796301, with prejudice and I hope that this will end this controversy. QUARLE: Please repeat what he is ordered to do again. JUDGE SPAIN: He is ordered to file a Satisfaction of Judgment in full by Monday. SHERRER: So is the satisfaction of judgment to be filed in the RG10-537233 case? JUDGE SPAIN: Yes in the case where the judgment, was entered. SHERRER: And then is the court going to, on its own motion, going — | to dismiss the pending matter? JUDGE SPAIN: That's right and our minutes are going to reflect that we all witnessed Ms. Quarle give counsel a $6000 cashier's check, a $1200 cashier's check and personal check in the amount of $90.14 and so that concludes..this matter. QUARLE: I have some cash, I can give him this $90.14 cents now.e © V JUDGE SPAIN: Excellent, so I am ordering you to file this atisfaction of judgment by tomorrow (2/27/17). Ninety Dollars and fourteen cents. SHERRER: Can I have until Monday to file it? I know I have other criminal matters tomorrow. QUARLE: Here is $90.00 cash. JUDGE SPAIN: If you need fourteen cents, I will chip it in myself. QUARLE. I can give him a dollar. JUDGE SPAIN: I want to a Satisfaction of Judgment in Full filed in Case RG10-537233 by Monday and if that does not happen, I will file it myself. SHERRER: I will make sure that happens Judge. JUDGE SPAIN: Okay and as soon as that’s done, I will dismiss the current action, with prejudice, which means it can’t be refiled at all. Okay and then I sincerely hope that Ms. Keegan and Ms. Quarle will never have any more contact with one another and this matter will be finally put to bed and to rest. QUARLE: Thank you. I concur. (The Hearing in Department 19 of the Alameda County Superior Court ended at about 3:45 PM on 1/27/17.) Fast forward to February 24, 2017. After cashing my two cashier's checks (on 1/31/17) in the amount of $7200.00 plus $91.00 cash, on 2/24/17 Gary Lee Sherrer files a Notice of Appeal. The DCA assigned the Appeal to Case Number A150642.. As of today 3/8/17 Mr:Sherrer has not paid the $775.00 filing fee. On 3/1/17 I asked Mr. Sherrer to admit he filed the Appeal to retaliate against me for filing a Bar Complaint. On 3/1/17 at 5:23 PM in response to my email as to why Ms. Keegan has filed an appeal, Mr. Sherrer emailed: "Ms. Quarle, my client didn’t change her mind about anything. Plaintiff still feels she is entitled to additional damages, attorney fees and punitive damages for your fraudulenttransfer. There was no “settlement”. The checks were negotiated pursuant to the order of Judge Spain along with filing the Acknowledgement and Satisfaction. The appeal is the result of that order in RG15796301 requiring plaintiff to accept your payment of the judgment in RG105372333 and the court’s subsequent dismissal of RG15796301. The appeal in RG15796301 has nothing to do with anything but the court’s order which plaintiff asserts was in excess of its authority (contrary to your assertion that it is in retaliation for a Bar Complaint which I will worry about when and if the State Bar contacts me.)Signed Gary Sherrer On 2/10/17 Quarle filed a modest Cost Memorandum. In Sherrer’s Motion to Tax Quarle’s Cost Memorandum, Gary Sherrer admitted for the first time that “UFTA does not provide for attorney fees.” Nevertheless the reason he filed the Appeal is because his client, he believes is “entitled to attorney fees.” In Sherrer’s Motion to Tax Cost he falsely claimed “Quarle admitted to recording Ms. Keegan (under penalty of perjury) over 40 times and then , at trial “she testified that she did not record Plaintiff at all”. Where does Mr. Sherrer get this misinformation from? Case RG14748492: Keegan v. Patrimonio: On 2/9/17 Gary Sherrer files a Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer based on Attorney Caspari’s failure to pay $775.00. However the Motion was never served on William Caspari or anyone. On 2/10/17 the DA dismissed the charges against Maricris Patrimonio pursuant to Penal Code Section 1385 in the interests of justice. On 2/15/17 Mr. Sherrer emailed me “I doubt that the DA filed felony criminal charges vs. Patrimonio without more than Ms. Keegan's word.” On March 8, 2017 in Keegan vs. Patrimonio, Judge Markam denied Gary Lee Sherrer’s Motion to Strike Kerwin Patrimonio’s Answer to the Complaint in Case RG14748492 because Mr.Sherrer failed to serve the motion. See Order Denying Sherrer’s Motion. Gary Sherrer filed as Keegan’s attorney, Case RG16834413, Keegan ¥. Gaspari. Recently Gary Sherrer served the wrong Requests forAdmissions on William Caspari and propounded the RFAs that were served on Quarle in Case RG15796301. For example Sherrer asks Caspari to admit that "105 Starview Court was transferred for no consideration to Daniel Kaner.”, “Admit that Daniel Kaner received money from the sale of 105 Starview Court.” I emailed Gary Sherrer that he has “his cases mixed up, wrong case, wrong RFAs”. Instead of admitting his mistake, Sherrer emailed me: “Stop practicing law with Caspari”. Then Gary Sherrer files a Motion to Compel Responses on.William Caspari. I advised the Court that previously ( on 4/13/16 )° Meaghan Keegan filed a Notice of Appeal of the Judgment in Case MSC10-03266 with a bad check. Case A 147984. The DCA advised Ms. Keegan that check # 4070 was not honored by the bank due to “NON SUFFICIENT FUNDS”. The NSF check was not replaced and on 5/31/16 the Appeal was dismissed and the Remittiur issued to Respondent Bruce Fonarow. GARY LEE SHERRER BACKDATED DISCOVERY RESPONSES. On August 19, 2016 in an Opposition to Quarle’s Motion to Compel Further Responses, Mr. Sherrer falsely stated “plaintif€ served timely responses to all of the above discovery devices on March 3, 2016". Please see Exhibit “A”. (But no Exhibit A was filed) . “Plaintif€ complied with her legal duties as under the Discovery Act. As such, Defendant's motion is moot.” (page 2, lines 5:7) Then he added “defendant’s motion is frivolous”. This pleading is dated 8/17/16 but it is signed by “Sunnie Richordsen” for Gary Lee Sherrer. So false |pleading, false information and the pleading is not even signed by attorney Sherrer. Then Sherrer sought discovery sanctilons from Quarle! On 1/17/17 Gary Lee Sherrer falsely filed a pleading stating “I am in receipt of an email from defendant wherein she stats that she will never pay the underlying judgment.” He even repeated this lie in the Second Amended Complaint. I demanded a copy of the email. He never produced it. ‘AN ATTORNEY MAY NOT CONSPIRE WITH A CLIENT TO DEFRAUD OR INJURE A. THIRD PARTY. If I had the money I could retain a forensic computer expert to analyze Mx. Sherrer’s filesc c ky VY The computer evidence in Case RG15796301 is the final nail in the coffin, The created date of the discovery responses, the scheme to recreate the responses and pass them off as originals, the cover-up of Sherrer’s involvement (later stating they were “ny client’s pre representation discovery responses.”) It takes money to combat litigation fraud. I am 74 and my only income is Social Security. I ask the State Bar to question Mr. Sherrer regarding the production of these fake discovery responses. If Keegan's responses to RFAs were actually created in March of 2016 why in the world does she cite the case of Hyster vs? gust. like Gary Sherrer does six months later? I believe that Craig Rawson (Keegan’s co-conspirator in the now dismissed Criminal case against Maricris Patrimonio) manufactured, created out of thin air discovery responses to avoid sanctions. Sherrer’ s involvement in the scheme to re-create pleadings back dated to March of 2016 and pass them off as originals cannot be understated. I subpoenaed the “hard drive of Sherrer’s computer, he objected”. Trying to conceal wrongdoing usually ends up only compounding the ‘error. When a new word document is saved for the first tie, the software enters the date and time of the save as its created date. This information is viewable by accessing File\Properties\General. The source of the date/time is the computer’s internal clock (often displayed on the lower right of, the Windows desktop). Document management applications such as PC DOCS also create logs, which are accessible at File\Properties\Document Profile\History.. Once established the “created” date cannot be changed by the user, it is essentially an indelible time stamp that provides very compelling evidence as to the date and time of the documents creation. Then He Lied to Cover Up His Fraud. Gary Lee Sherrer filed a declaration under penalty of perjury claim Ms. Keegan served Quarle with discovery responses on March 11, 2016. That was false. In September 2016 I received certain discovery responses that were dated 3/11/16 but I never saw them before Septenber of 2016. I would never file a Motion to Compel Discovery that I had already received. I am shocked at Mr. Sherrer’s audacity to believe that he could lie to the court about "Ms. Keegan having already produced and served” the discovery responses in March of~ Page | of 4 Subj: Re: Contest tentative ruling. Keegan vs Quarle Date: 1/27/2017 2:01:14 P.M, Pacific Standard Time From: Te » Sherlaw@aolcom ry Sherrer Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 1:01 PM To: eto i ‘Subject: Fwd: Contest tentative ruling. Keegan vs Quarle So I'm preparing for drama at 2:30. annum, shoul . wees Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: “Dept. 19, Superior Court" Date: January 26, 2017 at 12:16:14 PM PST To: 'Marcia Quarle' , "SherrLaw@aol.com" Subject: RE: Contest tentative ruling. Keegan vs Quarle Hello counsel and Ms. Quarle, The Court expects you both to appear today at 2:30 pm for the hearing and request Ms. Quarle to bring the funds she has offered, Please confirm receipt of this email. ‘Thank You, Ana Liza Timonong Clerk to the Honorable Judge Julia Spain Superior Court of California, County of Alameda Administration Building, Dept. 19 12210ak Street, 3r4 Floor Oakland, Ca. 94612 (510) 267-6935 Email: Denti 9@alameda.courts.ca.gov From: Marcia Quarle (malito:paraleasi2@me.com) Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 11:31 AM To: Dept. 19, Superior Court~~ a Page 2 of 4 ‘Subject: Re: Contest tentative ruling. Keegan vs Quarle To: Dept 19 To: Gary Sherrer Quarle is willing to settle the matter by paying Ms Keegan the $6000.00 judgment today in open court.Mr. Sherrer kept insisting he is entitled to attorney fees for bringing this meritless action. Perhaps the court could Order Mr. Sherrer to accept my settlement in full of this UFTA case and the underlying Case RG10537233. Also Ms Keegan was fully aware of the fact that the house was sold when she first filed the case on 12/10/15. Marcia Quarle 510-621-9225 651 Addison Street, Suite 210 Berkeley, California 94710 Fax: 510-666-1004 On Jan 26, 2017, at 11:20 AM, Dept. 19, Superior Court wrote: So noted, see you all this afternoon. Thank You, Ana Liza Tumonong Clerk to the Honorable Judge Julia Spain Superior Court of California, County of Alameda Administration Building, Dept. 19 12210ak Street, 3r4 Floor~ ~ Page 3 of 4 Oakland, Ca. 94612 (610) 267-6935 Email: Dept1 9@alameda.courts.ca.gov From: Gary Sherrer [mailto:sherriaw@aol.com) Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 11:18 AM ‘To: Dept. 19, Superior Court ‘Subject: Re: Contest tentative ruling. Keegan vs Quarie Yes Gary Sherrer Sent from my iPhone On Jan 26, 2017, at 11:15 AM, Dept. 19, Superior Court wrote: Hello Mr. Sherrer, By the email sent below are you confirming that you are indeed contesting the motions scheduled today? Please advise asap! ‘Thank You, Ana Liza Tumonong Clerk to the Honorable Judge Julia Spain Superior Court of California, County of Alameda Administration Building, Dept. 19 12210ak Street, 39 Floor Oakland, Ca. 94612 (610) 267-6935 Email: Dept19@alameda.courts.ca.gov From: Gary Sherrer [mailto:sherrlaw@aol.com] ‘Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 11:13 AM To: Dept. 19, Superior Court; paralegal2@me.com Cc: sherriaw@aol.com ‘Subject: Contest tentative ruling. Keegan vs Quarle Danko v. O'Reilly, 232 Cal.App.4th 732, _ Cal.Rptr.3d_(Cal.App. Dist.1 11/25/2014) 1. The above case stands for the position that “CCP 187 was not designed to remedy a problem caused by the creditor.” 2, The Court expresses her view several times in the order thatthe FTA claims is questionable based on the language of the SAC wherein Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of funds from Kaner. The Court considers it undisputed that Kaner sold the property and transferred all of the funds to Quarle. In fact, Quarle has admitted in response to discovery that Kaner kept funds from the sale. 3. The Court is of the opinion that Keegan should have exhausted remedies in the underlying case which would have risked waiving ‘the FTA claims and potentially barred the same by the statute of limitations. 4. The Court blames both parties for the voluminous law and motion proceedings in this case. If the Court reviews the record, itis clear that the parties are not in equal position as to that. Defendant can be blamed for most of the law and motion practice in this case as well as the underlying case. Given the above, it the SAC is vague, Plaintiff would like to _amend--As:to the Court's intended'stay, Plaintiff objects on the bases of the above and it limits her ability to gain all of the process to which she is due. Sa Please advise Thank you Gary Sherrer Sent from my iPhone Page 4 of 4‘Gmail - Notice of Lien in consolidated BrentyAd case 9 2of3 iar \comn/maillw/O/?ui=28ik=741359e8 Ladeview.. 7 Eton Essex Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:47 PM (Quoted text hidden) Craig Rawson Mon, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:11 PM ‘To; Eton Essex Woyssie fucked om bigtime. Shotainmnea Sent from my iPhone ‘On Feb 15, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Eton Essex wrote: ———— Forwarded message From: Marcia Quarle Date: Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:31 PM ‘Subject: Notice of Lien in consolidated Brentwood case ‘To: meaghankeegan@comcast.net, Marcia Quarle 10% of all monies collected ‘All was asking a long time friend was 3 months in which to pay your invoice’ You feigned poverty and insolvency to get out of paying me for my services Sent from my iPhone Marcia Quarie 651 Addison Street Suite 210 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: 510 621-9225 2attachments 2118/16 12:08 PMvid Lof2 r e Q- eee. | @° 8" \ We ‘ ¥ Gm ail Eton Easex Re: Notice of Deposition and The shorthand reporters are Aiken Welch (they have a few shorthand reporters) 4 messages Marcia Quarle Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 7:49 PM To: meaghankeegan@comcast.net Ce: Marcia Quarle 4.25.12 To: Meghan Keegan Re: Deposition ‘You can check the credentials of Aiken Welch in Oakland, CA on line. [Tyou want to “verify the credentials” of Aiken Welch, a highly respected fir providing deposton services to litigants you are welcome to do so. Eton Essex Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:10 AM To: Eton Essex (utes tox niten) Q Et ail.com> ‘Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:11 AM To: Rawson Craig [uctes text ion} Craig Rawson Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:40 AM To MEAGHAN KEEGAN 1051 WOODSIDE ROAD, BERKELEY, CA 94708 Telephone: 510.841.4424 Fax: 610.841.4481 meaghankeegan@gmail.com May 8, 2012 Martin J. Malkin 1000 Fourth Street, Suite 875 Via email San Rafael, CA94901 Re: Brentwood Workout etal v. Malkin etal. Contra Costa County Superior Court, Case No. MSC10.02266 Dear Mr. Malkin, ) es 21416336 PM‘MUps:s/maut. So | downloaded your CMC Statement from the Court's website and discovered that you propounded a ‘document request to ACMIS in March 2012 and that you condlucted a deposition of ACMIS in Apri 2012 Qa As you know, you have an obligation to provide me with a copy of the document request and ACMIS has ‘an obligation to provide me with a copy of its responses. | received neither, 1, 3m also ented toa copy ofthe deposition notice and had the right to attend. Your failure to provide me with a copy of the deposition notice deprived me of such right. | assume the above oversights were unintentional. That said, | ask that you provide me with a copy ofthe ‘deposition transcript. | also ask that you cease any further omissions, Very truly yours, Meaghan Keegan ‘cc: Sean Absher 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 4200 ‘San Francisco, CA 94104 20f2 ‘ 2114/16 3:3e Ce err Ce © Share * Save © POF N.D. Cal. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 13-cv-05450-ME) 07-24-2015 AMBER KELLEHER, Plaintiff, v. JOHN €, KELLEHER, Defendant. MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge RULE 56(F) NOTICE AND ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Plaintiff Amber Kelleher brings this action against Defendant John €. Kelleher, alleging that her ex-husband and Defendant's brother, Daniel J. Kelleher ("Daniel"), fraudulently transferred shares of WhiteHat Securities, Inc. to Defendant in December 2010. Third Am. Compl. ("TAC"), Dkt. No. 118. Plaintiff alleges four causes of action against Defendant: (1) Actual Fraudulent Transfer under California Civil Code section 3439.04; (2) Constructive Fraudulent Transfer under California Civil Code section 3439.05; (3) Common Law Fraudulent Transfer; and (4) Breach of Quasi-Contract/Unjust Enrichment. Jd. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for ‘Summary Judgment on her Constructive Fraudulent Transfer claim under California's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("UFTA"), Cal, Civ. Code § 3439.05. Dkt. No. 109-11. Defendant did not file a cross motion for summary judgment. The dispositive motion deadline passed on May 28, 2015. Dkt. No. 106 at 2. On July 23, 2015, the, Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion. As noted at the hearing, Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion asserts that, although he received the WhiteHat shares from Daniel, Defendant recanveyed the proceeds of the sale of those shares back to Daniel in December 2011. Dkt. No. 124 at 23 (citing Geonetta Decl., Ex. 22 (John Kelleher Dep. 16:21- 17:13), Dkt, No. 122-1). Defendant thus asserts Plaintiff has suffered "no conceivable injury." Jd. Plaintiff disputes this assertion but does not dispute that Defendant reconveyed the proceeds of the WhiteHat shares to Daniel in December 2011. Reply at 18-19, Dkt. No. 128. At the hearing, Plaintiff's