LossMitPro's legal complaint
From CaseyPedia
On, or before, June 29th 2007 Mark Villaseñor (LossMitPro) sent Casey Serin and Marty Stewart email notice of a suit he planned to file in Sacramento Superior Court. After the impending action was discussed in Casey's June 29th Foreclosure Fridays Live talkcast, Casey posted the email and the first (and so far, only) page of the legal complaint to IAFF.
Contents |
[edit] Recent Developments
Haterz serinitis stopped by the courthouse on the afternoon of July 10th, 2007 and found out from the clerk that there is a July 20th 2 pm hearing on order to show cause regarding temporary restraining order.[1] Over on EN, BigDaddy63 explains this new hearing's significance; since the case did not get thrown out, the burden of proof has now shifted from Mark to Casey.[2]
On the July 3 hatercast, LossMitPro said that he has filed an action in Sacramento (presumably in Sacramento County Superior Court) but that he has taken his ex parte motion off the July 5 calendar and that he intends to reschedule it for the following week. He said that the complaint which was filed includes four exhibits, apparently including the Casey-Marty joint venture agreement. The case currently appears on the [court's website] as "MARK VILLASENOR, ET AL. VS. CASEY KONSTANTIN SERIN, ET AL." with case number 07AM06649. It was filed on 7/3/2007 under the case type "Other Civil Complaint".
On the July 6 fraudcast, Casey reported that he visited the courthouse and that the complaint had not been filed, and that LossMitPro told him via E-mail that the complaint was "on hold" and not yet public.
[edit] Version 1
On June 29th, Casey reproduced the following email and complaint at IAFF:[3]
[edit] E-Mail to Casey and Marty
Mr. Serin & Mr. Stewart:
Attached you’ll find a PDF copy (complaint-1.pdf) of the Caption Page for suit I prepared and may file early next week, seeking restrictive court orders preventing your unlawful profiteer based on unlawful conduct; and, perpetrations of fraud and manipulation of Google search engine systems. Such conduct is actionable under California law (in part Bus. & Prof. Code §17200) being fully supported by the evidence (EXHIBITS) attached thereto the complaint including, but not exclusive to, your joint venture contract (attached hereto as Casey-Marty_Contract.pdf).
In the matter of Injunctive Relief, be advised; 1) Ex Parte’ (single party) motions have been calendared in Sacramento Superior Court, to be heard on 5 July 2007; 2) the hearing shall be held in either Department 53 before Judge McMaster at 9:00 AM, or Department 54 before Her Honor Chang at 2:00 PM; 3) Sacramento Superior Court is located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, California (downtown); and, 4) once a Case No. has been assigned (upon filing the complaint), a final Court Department shall be determined for the set motion hearing and a secondary notice will be delivered to you by email (to include copies of the motion) and/or telephonically – within or exceeding 24 hours of said hearing.
Please take notice the purpose of this writing is to provide advanced notice of the Ex Parte’ hearing, and afford you both one last opportunity to resolve issues before engaging the court. Should you wish to entertain the latter and earnestly seek a more amicable conclusion, as opposed to court restraint? I shall be happy to discuss settlement terms with you or counsel. Kindly contact me accordingly by phone on or before 9:00 PM July 1, 2007; after which I’ll presume seeking the court’s intervention is conclusively required.
Respectfully,
Mark Villaseñor
Queuetrac Asset Systems,
www.Queuetrac.com
“Problem Debts From Red To Black!” - sm
1257 Sanguinetti Rd., Ste. 244
Sonora, California 95370
Voice: 1-Too-Queuetrac (866-783-8387), Ext. 01
Fax: 1-877-Queuetrac (877-783-8387)
[edit] Attachments
1. Complaint-1.pdf (caption sheet, withheld by Serin, but reproduced in text form with certain identifying names redacted)
2. Casey-Marty_Contract.pdf (contract withheld by Serin, due to non-disclosure constraints)
[edit] Caption Sheet
Mark Villaseñor, Doing Business As
Queuetrac Asset Systems
1257 Sanguinetti Road, #244
Sonora, California 95370
888-783-8387
Plaintiffs, In Properia Persona
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
LIMITED CIVIL
Mark Villaseñor, an unmarried man,
individually and Doing Business As,
Queuetrac Asset Systems,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Casey K. Serin, a married man, individually; Hammar Investments, Inc., a California Corporation; IAmFacingForeclosure.com, an Internet Publication and Partnership; Anna Serin, a married woman, individually; Martin (“Marty”) Stewart, a man of unknown marital status, individually; Pagedaddy.com; ForeclosureCode.com, an Internet Publication and Partnership; “Effing Back Stabbers,” sued herein as DOES No. 1; “Whoever,” sued herein as DOES No. 2; “Mocha,” sued herein as DOES No. 3; and, 22 DOES 4 to 200, Inclusive, Defendants.
Case No.: COMPLAINT FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT; LIABLE; TRADE LIABLE; INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200); AND, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
Amount demanded exceeds $10,000, and is less than $25,000.
Now come Mark Villaseñor and Queuetrac Asset Systems, Plaintiffs, alleging:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiff, Mark Villaseñor is now, and at all times relative to this complaint was, a resident of Tuolumne County doing business under the fictitious business name of Queuetrac Asset Systems (hereinafter jointly referred to as “Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs have
Complaint: Villaseñor, et al vs. Serin, et al
[edit] LossMitPro's response
After Casey's publication of the complaint, LossMitPro again emailed Casey and Marty to rescind his deadline for settlement. This email was again reproduced by Serin as an addendum to his post on IAFF.
Mr. Serin & Mr. Stewart: With respect to Mr. Serin’s blog topic concerning our dealings, posted at or about 9:22 PM this evening. Please be advised that my previous offer to meet and confer in the hope of resolving our differences is hereby withdrawn. There shall be no settlement discussions prior to Ex Parte’ hearing set as previously indicated. Once again in the latter regard you shall be given additional notices of hearing, once the subject complaint is filed and a court Department established.
Respectfully,
Mark Villaseñor
Queuetrac Asset Systems,
www.Queuetrac.com
“Problem Debts From Red To Black!” - sm
1257 Sanguinetti Rd., Ste. 244
Sonora, California 95370
Voice: 1-Too-Queuetrac (866-783-8387), Ext. 01
Fax: 1-877-Queuetrac (877-783-8387)
[edit] Version 2
On July 4th, Casey reproduced a revised complaint at IAFF:[4]
[edit] E-Mail to Casey and Marty
Mr. Serin & Mr. Stewart: As previously noted, please be advised that I shall appear Ex Parte’ before His Honor Judge McMaster tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM, Department 53, at the main Courthouse (downtown) located at: 720 9th Street, Sacramento, California.
An Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Order To Show Cause (OSC) why a preliminary Injunction should NOT be granted, pending trial, will be presented to the court.
The Application for TRO shall seek to prevent and restrain continuation of unlawful conduct including, but not necessarily exclusive to: i) profiting from multiple counts of attempted financial fraud, as defined by Cal. Penal Code §§532a & f, in furtherance of your unlawful “contract” submitted into evidence; ii) the waste and siphoning off of profits generated by your collective efforts; iii) your joint activity to conceal assets; and, iv) continuation of disparaging my good name and reputation via the Internet or otherwise.
Please note that although I indicated a courtesy copy of the TRO/OSC Application would be provided (29 June 2007), revisions to same are not complete at this time. Thus the courtesy copy is not provided this morning as previously represented, for that reason.
Lastly, a copy of the filed/endorsed complaint Caption Sheet is attached for your consideration. This should suffice to confirm that suit has in deed been filed, and that I am moving forward with action.
[edit] Caption Sheet
Mark Villasenor. Doing Business As
Queuetrac Asset Systems
1257 Sanguinetti Road, #244
Sonora, California 95370
888-783-8387
Plaintiffs, In Properia Persona
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
LIMITED CIVIL
Case No.: [unreadable]
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & DAMAGES (Bus. & Prof Code 517200); AND. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.
(Amount demanded does not exceed $10,000, and is less than $25,000.)
Mark Villasenor, an unmarried man, individually and Doing Business as, Queuetrac Asset Systems,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Casey K Serin, a married man, individually; Hammar Investments, Inc., a California Corporation; lArnFacingForeclosure.com, an Internet Publication and Partnership; Martin (”Marty”) Stewart, a man of unknown marital status, individually; PageDaddy.com; ForeclosureCode.com, an Internet Publication and Partnership; and, DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive,
Defendants.
Now come Mark Villasenor and Queuetrac Asset Systems, Plaintiffs, alleging:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiff, Mark Villasenor (hereinafter “VILLASENOR”) is now, and at all times relative to this complaint was, a resident of Tuolumne County doing business under the fictitious business name of Qeuetrac Asset Systems (hereinafter jointly referred to as “Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs have filed the statement and published the notice required
[edit] LossMitPro's update
In an IAFF comment, Casey reproduces a further email from LossMitPro:[5]
Mr. Serin & Mr. Stewart: Unfortunately notices given you regarding the planned hearing re; Ex Parte application for TRO/OSC provided an incorrect address for Department 53. I just realized this error moments ago while preparing to leave for Sacramento, and wanted to inform you as soon as possible.
Therefore, be advised the TRO/OSC Hearing originally set for 9:00 AM this morning will be re-set, most likely for Tuesday of next week. You shall of course receive another notice pursuant to court rule, when the reset hearing is calendared (projected for 10 July 2007).
Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience, however directing you to the wrong location and proceeding nonetheless is improper. I have never litigated in Sacramento and was misinformed of Department 53’s location. I hope you understand and will advise respective counsel accordingly.
[edit] Idiot's Guide Version
On the Haterzcast™ of Saturday 30 June 2007, when asked to supply an explanation of his lawsuit that a five-year-old child could understand, LossMitPro was happy to comply. On the recording, this passage begins 24:37 in:
- First of all, Casey - when I left Casey the first time, Casey asked me to come back. I said I would under the express condition that certain things were met. Casey did not follow through with those things. That is considered under California law a fraudulent inducement of employment.
- I waived my fee for Casey with good intent - in other words, don't pay me, just pay your creditors. I terminated my business relationship with him once because he fell through. So he induced me, in other words, to come back to help him under the premise that he would do certain things. He did not do those things and is not doing those things, and based on what I see, he is continuing to violate the law. That's fraud.
- Therefore he did intend to have me work for him and my waiving my fee - because, I'll be frank with you, to handle eight properties, I would have charged the guy ten thousand dollars had he had it. If he was a regular, if somebody just came to me with a referral or whatever, I'd calculate roughly ten thousand dollars for my work. And that would be predicated only upon successful negotiation. So that's the premise of the lawsuit.
- The other causes of action are basically libel, meaning that you can't say something that's not true about somebody and you can't diminish their character, under California law and many other states, and trade libel, which means you can't disparage somebody's business viciously and maliciously because you're pissed off.
- The cause of action under business and professions is basically this. Casey is a competitor. He's in the same business I am, essentially, and he's made it quite clear that he wants to help people in foreclosure. Therefore under California law he must comply with certain things that are considered fair and equitable practice. He has not done that. Therefore I can get certain orders and certain things granted, based on his competitive edge.
[edit] References
- ↑ Hearing on July 20th, post by serinitis at CaseyHaterz.com, July 10th 2007
- ↑ A whole new ball game, comment by BigDaddy63 at EN, July 10th 2007
- ↑ Mark Villasenor is Suing Me and My Innocent Family - Please Help!, IAFF, June 29th 2007
- ↑ Mark Villaseñor - Stupid Ex Parte’ Hearing, IAFF, July 4th 2007
- ↑ Mr. Serin & Mr. Stewart..., comment on IAFF, July 5th 2007 at 8:42 AM
