1

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL
2
3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

4 REGARDING THE COMPLAINANT’S VERIFICATION

5
6
ARGUMENT:
7
The complaint in this matter should be deemed unverified by the purported plaintiff, and
8
this matter dismissed based upon the true, real and lawful Plaintiff’s such failure to verify.
9
10 First, this Court should note that what appears to be a verification of the complaint is

11 fatally flawed and should be deemed unverified as it does not constitute a true verification within
12 the meaning of the law.
13
The complaint’s verification does not contain the declarant’s vested authority from the
14
purported plaintiff or from any members of a corporate/entity board within the verification
15
submitted, and fails to comport with the strict guidelines covering verifications.
16
17 THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT VERIFIED BY

18 SOMEONE AUTHORIZED TO DO SO.

19 Defendants are aware that a corporation, and/or a corporate trust entity may authorize its
20
attorney to make such a verification as an agent of the corporation. See, C.C.P., 2030.250(b)
21
However, this is not the situation in this matter.
22
23 The Attorney does not state that he is the attorney authorized to make such a verification

24 on behalf of…but rather states, that he is doing the verification because “Plaintiff is absent from

25
26
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
27 DEFENDANT’S ‘SUPPLEMENTAL’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
THE VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT ISSUE

28
Page | 1
 1 the County of San Diego, and as such, this complaint should be deemed unverified, and
2 thereafter dismissed, with prejudice.
3
It should be noted that at the trial in this matter, (rather next week, next month, or next
4
year) the Defendants fully intends [and hereby places on notice] to call the Attorney (Randall D.
5
Naiman) as a witness in the matter, to state under the penalty of perjury, the source or sources
6
7 where the information was obtained which allowed the Attorney to verify the false and

8 fraudulent components of this Unlawful Detainer Complaint.

9 Defendant will also seek to mandate the Attorney waiver of any attorney-client privilege
10
or work product protections applicable, pursuant to the terms set forth in California Code of
11
Civil Procedures, section, 2030.250(b).
12
13 The Courts have construed C.C.P., 446 to permit an attorney verification only where the

14 client’s absence from the county makes it impractical or impossible to obtain the client’s

15 signature. “If the client can be reached by mail no such impossibility exists…and [the]
16
attorney verification is not allowed.” See, DeCamp v. First Kensington Corp. (1978) 83
17
Cal.App.3d 268, @ 275.
18
Thus Attorney Randall D. Naiman, Esq., may therefore properly be called to testify at the
19
20 time of trial on this matter. See, CRPC 5-210.

21 The subordination of perjury can be avoided when an individual is allowed to verify its
22 complaint through an attorney who falsely claims that its client does not have an office in the
23
County in which the attorney is located, and nothing can be further from the truth as Defendants
24
are aware of an office less than one mile from the offices of attorney Randall D. Naiman.
25
26
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
27 DEFENDANT’S ‘SUPPLEMENTAL’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
THE VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT ISSUE

28
Page | 2
 1 Now that the plaintiff has been exposed, Defendants strongly believes that the plaintiff
2 will simply seek some other sort of questionable angle to give this Court venue jurisdiction. And
3
this is in spite of the fact that the plaintiff has also failed to plead venue jurisdiction in this
4
instant matter.
5
Lastly, it should be duly noted that attorney Randall D. Naiman does not ‘dispute’ and/or
6
7 deny the above-mentioned facts…in fact, counsel admitted in open court that he believed that it

8 was okay for an attorney to verify the complaint even though the client is in the same county.
9 Finally, this Court should not let stand, an unlawful detainer complaint that has not been
10
properly or lawfully verified. And as such, this action should be dismissed with prejudice.
11
Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint should be deemed unverified, and this matter
12
13 dismissed based upon such failure to verify and the lack of authority therewith.

14 This Court should note that what appears to be a verification of the complaint is fatally

15 flawed and should be deemed unverified as it does not constitute a true verification within the
16
meaning of the law.
17
The Plaintiff has at least one office in San Diego County and any statement otherwise is a
18
total falsehood to the unverified complaint.
19
20 The verification issue is important to the Defendants because the verification caused the

21 court to issue a five-day summons, based on the verification therein.

22 Defendants contends that the Complaint is fatally defective, in that it fails to state a cause
23
of action for unlawful detainer and fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be had,
24
as it has not been lawfully verified as required by law or under CCP., 1166(a)(1).
25
26
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
27 DEFENDANT’S ‘SUPPLEMENTAL’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
THE VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT ISSUE

28
Page | 3
 1 The ultimate point is simple…attorney Randall D. Naiman, Esq., individually nor in his
2 representative capacity can be a plaintiff in this matter, and under California’s Code of Civil
3
Procedures, section, 369 the plaintiff and his attorney is thus plain wrong and as such, the
4
unlawful detainer complaint should be deemed unverified as a matter of law.
5
Accordingly, Defendants believes that it is axiomatic that an unlawful detainer complaint
6
7 must be verified, and under a defective verification it is as if the requisite verification is missing.

8 CONCLUSION:
9 The subject unlawful detainer complaint if fatally defective in that it fails to state a cause
10
of action for unlawful detainer due to the defective verification.
11
Defendant hereby states that since no complaint or cause of action for unlawful detainer
12
13 has been properly alleged, the five-day summons/complaint must be dismissed with prejudice

14 Counsel is being disingenuous when he openly states that the Plaintiff is not in the county

15 and as such, and for this reason alone, the court should dismiss this entire case, with prejudice.
16
17
18
19 Respectfully submitted,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
27 DEFENDANT’S ‘SUPPLEMENTAL’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
THE VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT ISSUE

28
Page | 4
 1
2 03/08/2023 Edmound Daire
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 DEFENDANT’S ‘SUPPLEMENTAL’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
THE VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT ISSUE

28
Page | 5