2013-12-06 - LIBERI v TAITZ CDCA - Emergency Motion - 13-56253 Emergency Motion(1)

8/13/2019 2013-12-06 - LIBERI v TAITZ CDCA - Emergency Motion - 13-56253 Emergency Motion(1)

1/68

Case No. 13-56253IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Lisa Liberi, et al.,Plaintiffs/Appellees,

vs.Orly Taitz, et al.,

Defendant/Appellant.

Appeal from the United StatesDistrict Court for the CentralDistrict of CaliforniaCivil Action No.: 8:11-CV-00485-AG AJWx)

EMERGENCY MOTION UNDER CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 BY APPELLANT,ORLY TAITZ FOR ORDER BARRING APPELLEES LAW OFFICES OFPHILIP J. BERG AND GO EXCEL GLOBAL, FROM PARTICIPATING IN

APPEAL, AND STAYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE; CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO CIRCUIT RULE 27-3; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES; SUPPORTING DECLARATION

Kim Schumann, Esq. , CSBN 170942Jeffrey Cunningham;. ~ g _ . _ CSBN 151067SCHUMANN I . R O ~ E N B E R G LLP3100 S Bristol St., Suite 100Costa Mesa, CA 92626714) 850-0210- telephone714) 850-0551- faxCounsel for Defendant/Appellant,Orly Taitz

Case: 13-56253 12/06/2013 ID: 8892982 DktEntry: 7-1 Page: 1 of 65 (1 of


2/68

C E R T IFICA T I O NP U RS U A NT T O R ULE 27-3Defendant and Appellant, ORLYTAITZ ( Taitz ), respectfully submits this

Certificatio nregarding her Emergency Motion for an Order barring Plaintiffs andAppellees, LAW OFFICES OFPHILIP J . BERG (the Berg Offices) and GOEXCEL GLOBAL( E xcel ), from particip ating in thisappeal, including but notlimited to filingany brief, submitting ora l argument or participating in any oth ermanner.

The M otion is made as to the Berg Officesbased on Pla intiffs' recentrepresentation made inthe related ap peal by D efendant andAppellant, DEFENDOUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIO NS ( DOFF) (Liberi. et al. v Taitz.et al.; CaseNo. 13-5 6250), that the Berg Off ices is notaseparate business entitybut m erelyafictitious business name usedby Plaintiffand Appellee,PHILIP J BERG( Berg ). See, E xhibit C hereto. In addition to not being abusiness entity, thefictitious nam e Law Off ices of Phil ip J Berg isobso lete orotherwisedefunctdue to thesuspensionofBe rg's license to practice law in his home StateofPennsylv ania. See, Exhibit A hereto. Forthese reasons, the Berg Offices as amatter of law isnot an Appellee with legal standingto participate in this appeal.

The Motion is made as to Excelbased on itsnon-existence as any form ofbusiness entity. Plaintiffs donot specify in their pleadings whatform of entity(corporation,partnership,etc.) Excel purports to be. Plaintiffsallege that Excel hasabusiness address in New Jersey. Fir st Amended Complaint, -r ; Exhibit Dhereto. No record hasbeen found from New Jersey that Excel is any exis tingbusinessentity. Thus,Excel as amatter of lawis not an Appellee with legalstandingto participate in this appeal.

l lll



3/68

Taitz also seeks an O rder stayingthe briefing schedule in this matter, pending resolution of issues regarding whether the Berg Offices and Excel havelegal standing necessary to participate in this appeal.

1 The telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and office addresses of theattorneys for the parties are as follows: (a) Gittler Bradford, Stephen H Marcus,Esq. and Randy Berg, Esq., 10537 Santa M onica Blvd., Third Floor, Los Angeles,CA 90025-4999, (310)474-4007, s [email protected] and [email protected]. forPlaintiffs/Appellees, L ISA LIBERI, LISA OS TELLA and G O EX C ELGLOBAL;(b) Philip J Berg, 555 Andorra Glen Court ,Suite 12, L afayette Hill,P 19444-2531, (610) 825-3 134, philiberg@gmail .com. for Plaintiff/Appellee, PHILIP JB ERG; and (c) Plaintiff/Appellee, LA W OFFICES O F PHILIP J BER G, 555A ndorra Glen Court, Suite12, Lafayet te Hill, PA 19444-2531, (610) 825-3134,philjberg@gm ail. com.

2 t is necessary for Taitz to seek relief hereinon an emer gency basispursuant to CircuitRule 27-3. A Scheduling O rder has been issued in this matterrequiring Taitz s Opening Brief and Excerpts ofRecord to be filed and served b yD ecem ber 24, 2013. Therefore, there is less than tw enty-one (21) days for there l ie f sought by Taitz to be considered and issued before the present Dec em ber 24,20 13 deadline.

3 As noted,D OFF has filed a related appeal (Case No. 13-56250).D O F F has filed a Mo tion in that appeal requesting various relief, including to barthe Berg Offices and Excel from participati ng in the appeal. The C ourt ofAppealhas issued an Order requiring Be rg to file a response to the Motion , including tostatewhether he seeks to rep resent the B erg O ffices, and to st y briefing untilfurther Order. See, Exhibit B hereto.ll

- 2 -



4/68

4. Berghas not, as required, filed any response to DO FF 's Motion, andisthus barredfrom representing the B erg O ffices.The O rder also providesthatfailureto respond toit m ay result in the w aiver of all claims and arguments in the

appealby The Law Offices ofPhilip J B erg. ( Exhibit B Order,pg. 3.) Th eCourt of Appeals is considering that issue, as well asD OF F' s o ther requests forre lief includingbut not limited to barring the Berg O ffices and Excel fromparticipating in DOFF s appeal. Theparties are accordingly awaiting a furtherOrder on DOFF s Motion, includingon the issues presentedherein.

5 As explained, DOFFs M otion is pending in C ase No. 13-56250, withthe Court of Appeals consideringit and not yet having issued a second Order on it,including on the issues raised herein. SuchOrder l ikelywill affect handling of thisappeal. Fo r this additional reason, Taitz is proceeding pursuantto Circu it Rule 27-3where the Motion in DOFF s appeal is pending, and the second Order on saidMotion may not be issued until after the Decem ber 24, 2013deadline inTai tz ' sappeal particularly where briefingin DOFF sappeal is stayed Taitz thereforecertifiesthat to av oid irreparableharm reliefis neede d inless than twenty-one (21)day s.

6. C ommencingon December 3, 2013 , T aitz 's counsel has met andconferred v ia em ail with allother counsel. Plaintiffs ' counsel onD ecember 4,2013 responded to Tai tz 's counsel 's email. T he parties have been unable toresolve the issues presented herein. Further, all P laintiffs through their counsel arebeing served with Tai tz 's Motion.

7 The re lief sought by Taitz, regarding whether the Berg O ffices andExcel (both non-existent purported entities) m ay participate in her appeal, was notavailable in the D istrict Court.ll



5/68

8. On December 5,2013 ,Taitz s cou nsel informed the Court oAppealsM otion Unit (Stephanie, Staff Attorney)o th isand T aitz s concu rrently-filedM otions and o the emergency basis for submission o them.

Dated: December 6 2013 Is/ - JeffreyP. Cunninghamy ~ ~ IGm Schumannl Esq.JeffreyP. Cunnmgharn, Esq.Attorneys for Defendant ana Appellant, ORLY TAITZ



6/68

M E M O R A N D U M OF P O IN T S ANDA UT H O R IT IE S Defendant and Appellant,ORLYT AITZ ( Taitz''), respectfully submits this

EmergencyMotion for an Order barring Plaintiffs andAppellees, LAW OFFICESOF PHILIPJ BERG (the Berg Offices )and GO EX CEL GLOBAL ( Excel),from participating inthis appeal,including but not limitedto filing any brief,submitting oral argument or participating inany other manner.

Taitz also seeks anOrderstaying thebriefing schedule in thismatter,pendingresolution of theissuesraisedherein.I . Introduction

Taitz has appealed fromthe June 18,2013 Order of the District Court (Hon.Andrew Guilford, Judge) denyingher M otion to strike under CaliforniaCodeofCivil Proceduresection 425.16 challenging the First Amended Complaint ofPlaintiffs, LISA LIBERI, LISA OSTELLA, PHILIPJ BERG ( Berg), Excel andthe Berg O ffices.

Bergformerly represented all Plaintiffs. However, onJune 19, 2013, Berg'slicense to practice law issuedb y his home stateof Pennsylvania was suspended fortwo years. See, ExhibitA hereto. Berg, thus, cannot represent any other party.II . TheCourt ofA ppeals nR elated C ase No13-56250I sC onsidering the

Similar M otion ofA ppellan t,D efend Our Freedom sFoundat ions, andShouldC on siderThe Sam e Issuesand R eliefinT his C aseDefendant and Appellant, DEFENDOU RFREEDOM S FOUNDATIONS

( DOFF ),has filed a relatedappeal (Liberi. etal. v Taitz, et al.; Case No. 13-56250).

DOFF has filed a M otion in thatappeal requestingvarious relief, includingto bar the BergOffices andE xcel fromparticipating in that appeal. The Court ofAppealhas issued an Order requiringBerg to file a response tothe Motion,



7/68

including to statewhether heseeksto representthe Berg Offices, and tostaybriefing until further Order. See, Exhibit B hereto.

A m ong theissues being consideredon DO FF ' sM otion is the same reliefsought herein by Taitz, as identified above.T he partiesare accordingly awaitingafurther Order on D O F F 's Motion. Thus, this Court in Tai tz 's appeal shouldconsider and gran t to her the samerelief beingconsideredin D OFF's appeal,in cluding as towhether the BergOffices andExcel (bothnon-existent entities)m ay participate herein.III. W here theB erg O ffices is Merelya Fictitious Business Name, and Not a

SeparateB usiness Entity, As a M att er o Law t LacksL egal Standingto Participate in T aitz's Appealt is undisputed thatthe Berg Offices is not a separate business entity, but

instead merely a fictitious business name used byBergduringthe time that hemaintaineda license topractice lawissued by his hom e state of Pennsylvania.For example, Plaintiffs in opposition toD O F F's subject M otionrecently revealedthat:

The LawOffices ofPhilip Berg is not a separate entity, but a fictitiousbusiness name ofPhilip Berg, and is represented by Philip Berg, n proper.( Exhibit C Opposition, pg. 3.)

t is axiomatic that a fictitious business name is not a separate businessentity, but only a name used by an individual or business entity (such as acorporation, etc.). Use of afictitious business namedoes not create a separatelegal entity. Pinkerton's, Inc. v Superior Court, 49 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1348(1996). Therefore, [a] civil action can be maintained only against a legalperson ... [and] ...a nonentity is incapable of being sued. W here asuit isbroughtagainst anentitywhich is legally nonexistent, the proceeding is void ab initioand



8/68

its invalidity can becalled to the attention of the court at any state of th epro ceeding. Oliver v Swiss Club Tell 222Cal.App.2 d528, 537 (1963).

Accordingly, it is a corollary to this ru le that the objection thata plaintiff ordefendant is nonexistent is not subject to w aiver, as in theca se of misnomer orlack ofleg l ca pacity, because the defectis jurisdictional. d. at 538.

In addition to not beinga business entity, the fictitious name Law Officesof Philip J Berg is obsoleteorotherwise defunct due tothe suspension of B erg 'slicense to practicelaw in his home State ofPennsylvania. See, Exhibit Ahereto. Bergcannot represent h imself to the public as Law Offices when hislicense to practice has been suspended, and to do so would bethe unauthorizedpractice oflaw.

For these reaso ns, the Berg Offices isnot an Appellee with legal standingnecessary to participate in this appeal and it should be barred from doing so.IV. Where Excel is a N on-ExistentE ntity, As a M atter o Law t Lacks

Legal Sta nding to ParticipateinTa itz's AppealPlaintiffs do not specify in their pleadings what form of entity (corporation,

etc.) Excel purports tobe. Plaintiffs merelya llege that Excel has a businessaddressin New Jersey. FirstA mended C o m p l a i n t ~ 5; Exhibit D hereto.

Publica lly-availablerecords fromNew Jersey have been searched todeterm ine if Excel exists and, ifso, whattype of entity itmay be and if itmain tains active status or is in goodstanding with New Jersey authoritiesregulating business entities in that State. No record has been foun d from NewJe rsey that Excel is anyexisting busin ess entity.

Pre su ming for the sake of argum ent onlythat Excel may be a corporation, itwould haveto dem onstrate that it maintains active or good standing statuswith NewJersey authorities. Acorporationno longer existing, or otherwise not in



9/68

good standing with the governmental body w ith jurisdiction over it, does not havelegalstanding toprosecute or defend anaction. Grell v Laci Le Beau Corp., 7Cal.App.4th 1300, 1306(1999); Palm Valley H omeowners Assn., Inc. v DesignMTC, 85 Cal.App.4th 553, 560 (2000).

New Jersey lawprovides fo r the sameresult- th at acorporationno longerexisting, or otherwise not in good standing, does not have legal standing tprosecute o r defend an action. Higi v Elm Tree Village, 114 N.J. Super. 88, 91,274A.2d 845 (1971); J.B. Wolfe, Inc. v Sa/kind, 3 N.J. 312 70 A.2d 72 (1949 ).

Presum in g for the sake of argument only thatExcel maybe a fictitiousbusiness name, the same re sult is mandated as discussed herein regarding th e BergOffices. Pinkerton s, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at 1348. Oliver, supra, 222Cal.App.2d at 537.

For these reasons, Excelis not an Appellee w ith legal standin g necessarytoparticipate in thisappeal andit should bebarred fromdoing so.IV. TheBriefing S chedule in Taitz's Appeal Should Be Stayed, s Has Been

Ordered in DO FF's Appeal, PendingResolutionoflssn s RegardingW hether theBerg O ffices and Excel H ave Legal Standing Necessary toParticipate in This AppealWhetherthe Berg Offices and Excel have legalstanding necessary to

participate in th is appeal arekey issues herein thatshould be decided beforeproceeding with the partiesfiling briefsand their Excerpts of Record.

This Court has so recognized inissuing its Order in D O FF's appeal,whichin cludes to stay briefingin that relate d m atter until such issues are resolved. See,

Exhibit B hereto.M oreover, thefiling of th is Motion results in a stay being imposed pursuant

to Circuit Rule 27-11, which provides in rele vant p art: M otions requesting the



10/68

typesofrel ief noted below shll st y the schedule orrecord prep r tion ndbriefing pending theC ourt 's disposition of the motion: (a) ( l )dismissal.(E mphasis added.)

Taitz 's M otion concerns dismissal of the Berg Offices' and Excel ' srightsin thisappeal, including to filebriefs or otherwiseparticipate in it. Thus, underCircuit Rule27-11, the filingofthisM otion operates to staythe briefingscheduleherein.V Conclu sion

For the reasons stated herein,Taitz respectfully submits that an Ordershould issue barring the Berg Offices and Excel fromparticipating in this appeal,in cluding but not limited to filing any brief,submitting oral argument orparticipatingin any otherm anner, and to stay thebriefing schedulependingresolution ofthose issues.

Dated:December 6 2013Is Jeffrey P.Cunningham

By: _Kim c h u m a n n ~ E q.Jeffrey P Cunmngham, Esq.Attorneys for Defendant anaAppellant, ORLY TAITZ



11/68

D E C LA R ATION OFJEFFREY P. CUNNIN GHAMTESJ%:SUPPORTINGM OTION YPLAINT IFF ANDA PP E L L AN ,0 YT A IT ZI Jeffrey P Cunningham, declare as follows:1. I am an attorney dulylicensed to practice lawin all courtsof the State

of Californiaand the United States Courts for theNinth Circuit, and am aPartnerin the law offices of Schumann Rosenberg, LLP, counsel for DefendantandAppellant, ORLYT AITZ ("Taitz"). I make this declaration basedon my personalknowledge of the facts stated herein. I gained my knowledge of thosefacts byvirtueof my partic ipationin the events described herein, my preparation or reviewof the documents describedherein,or some combination of the foregoing asid entifiedherein. f calledto testify tothe facts stated herein, Icould and would doso competently andtruthfully.

2. This declaration is submittedin support of Taitz 's Motionfor anOrder barring Plaintiffs andA ppellees, LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG(the"Berg Offices") andGO EXCELGLOBAL ("Excel"), from participating inthisappeal, including but not limited to filing any brief,submitting oral argument orparticipa ting in any othermanner. Taitz also seeksan Order staying the briefingschedule in this matter, pendingresolution of th ese issues.

3. I have read and am familiar with all pleadingsand orders in theunderlying casein the District Court (Hon. Andrew Guilford, Judge).Plaint iff andAppellee, PHILIP J. BERG ("Berg") represented Plaintiffs, including himself andthe Berg Offices in this case until his license to practice was suspended inhishome State of Pennsylvania onor about June 19, 2013.

4. I have readand am familiar with the pleadings and orders filed inBerg ' sdisciplinarymatter. A true and correct copy of th e Order of the SupremeCourt of Pennsylvania in Office ofDisciplinaryCounsel v. Berg is attached heretoas Exhib it A " and is incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set

1



12/68

forth.5 Defendantand Appellant, DEFENDO U RFREEDOM S

FOUNDATIONS ( DOFF ) (represented by Taitz),has filed a relatedappeal(L iberi, et al. v Taitz, et al.; CaseNo. 13-56250). Ihave read and amfamiliar withth e pleadingsand M otionsfiledin thatappeal. DOFF hasfileda M otion inthatappeal requestingvarious relief, includingto bar the Berg Officesand Excel fromparticipatingin that appeal.

6 I have read andam familiarwith D O F F 's Motion, the Opposition andReply regardingit in its appeal, and the Order on same. A true and correct copy ofth atOrder is attachedheretoas Exhib it B and is incorporatedhereinby thisre ferenceas though fully set forth. Am ong theissues being consideredon DOFF 'sM otionis thesamereliefsought herein by Taitz, as identifiedabove. The partiesare accordingly awaitinga further Order onD O FF's M otion.

7 Plaintiffs in oppositionto D OFF'ssubject Motion recently revealedthat: The LawOffices ofPhil ip Berg s nota separate entity, but a f ictitiousbusin ess name ofPhilip Berg, andisrepresente db yPhilipBerg, n pro per.(Opposition,pg. 3.)A true andcorrect copyof th esubject portions of thatbr iefsattached hereto as Exhib it C and is incorporated herein bythis reference asthoughfully set forth.

8 Plaintiffs donot specifyin their pleadingswhat form ofentity(corporation, etc.) Excel purports tobe. Plaintiffs merely allege that Excel hasabusiness address in New Jersey. (First Amended Complaint, -r 5.)A trueandcorrect copy ofthe subject portions of that Complaint is attachedhereto asExhib it D and is incorporatedhereinby this referenceas though fully setforth.llll



13/68

9. Publically-available records from New Jersey have been searched todetermine i Excel exists and, i so, what type o entity it may be and i itmaintains active status or is in good standing with New Jersey authoritiesregulating business entities in that State. No record has been found from NewJersey that Excel is any existing business entity.

10. t is necessary for Taitz to seek relief herein on an emergency basispursuant to Circuit Rule 27-3. A Scheduling Order has been issued in this matterrequiring Taitz's Opening Brief and Excerpts o Record to be filed and served byDecember 24, 2013. Therefore, there is less than twenty-one (21) days for therelief sought by Taitz to be considered and issued before the present December 24,2013 deadline.

11. As explained, DOFF's Motion is pending in Case No. 13-56250, withthe Court o Appeals considering it and not yet having issued a second Order on it.Such Order likely will affect handling o this appeal. For this additional reason,Taitz is proceeding pursuant to Circuit Rule 27-3 where the Motion in DOFF'sappeal is pending, and the second Order on said Motion may not be issued untilafter the December 24, 2013 deadline in Taitz's appeal particularly where briefingin DOFF's appeal is stayed Taitz therefore certifies that to avoid irreparable harmrelief is needed in less than twenty-one (21) days.

12. Commencing on December 3, 2013, Taitz's counsel has met andconferred via email with all other counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel on December 42013 responded to Taitz's counsel's email. The parties have been unable toresolve the issues presented herein. Further, all Plaintiffs through their counsel arebeing served with Taitz's Motion.

13. The relief sought by Taitz, regarding whether the Berg Offices andExcel have legal standing necessary to participate in this appeal, was not available

2



14/68

in the District Court.14. On De cem ber 5, 2013, Taitz s counsel informed the Court ofAppeals

Mot ion Unit (Stephanie, Staff Attorney) of this and T aitz s concurrently-filed M otions andof the emergency basis for submission of them.

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the la w s of the State ofCalifornia and of the United States of America that the above is true and correct.Executed on Decem ber 6, 2013,in Costa M esa, California.

3

Is/ - Jeffrey P CunninghamBy: _Jeffrey P Cunningham,Esq.Declarant



15/68

EXHIBIT A



16/68

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 636-1 Filed 06/21/13 Page 1 of 17 Page ID#:16000

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL. No. 1928 Disciplinary Docket No.3PetitionerNo 208 DB 2010

vAttorney Registration No. 9867

PHILIP J BERG.Respondent (Montgomery County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM :

AND NOW, this 191l day of June, 2013, upon consideration of the Report andRecommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated March 8. 2013. respondent sObjections and Exceptions and response thereto. the request for oral argument isdenied and it is hereby

ORDERED that Philip J. Berg is suspended from he Bar of this Commonwealthfor a period of two years and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217.Pa.R.D.E.

t is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Boardpursuant to Rule 208(g). Pa.R.D.E.

A Tnre Copy PilfTICi l NiCOlaAs Of 6/19rl01 J. ~ J~ t i ~5uprente Court of Pennsyfvanfa



17/68

EXHIBIT B



18/68

Cas e: 1356250 10/28/2013 ID: 8839652 DktEntry: 11

U N IT E D STA TE S COURT OF A P PE A L SFORTHE NINTH C IR C U IT

L IS A LIB ERI;et al. , N o. 13-56250

Page: 1 o f 3FILEOCT 282013

MOLL YC DWYER CLERKU.S. C O URT O F APP EALS

Plaintiffs - A ppellees,v

D .C. N o. 8:11-cv-00485-A G -A JW C entralD istrict of California,S anta na

O R LYTA ITZ, K D r. O rly Taitz;et al. ,D efendants,

andDEFENDOURFREEDOMSF O U N D A T IO N S , IN C .,

D efendant - A ppellant.

ORDER

Thecourt has receiveda ppellant 's u rgen tmotion for declaratorya nd

in ju nctiverelief, filedA ugus t 6, 2013 (the M otion ), theo pposition of appelleesL isa Liberi, L isa M. O stella , andGo Excel G lo bal, fi led A ugus t6, 2013(the

O pposition ), and appellan t 's rep ly ins upportof the M otion.Thecourtc onstrues the O pposition, in part,as am otion of StephenH.

M arcus,Esq., and R andyA. B erg,Esq., tow ithdraw asreta inedcounselfor

appelleesP hilip J. Berg and The Law O ffices of Philip J Berg. So construed, the

jp/M OA TT



19/68

Case: 13 56250 10/2 8/2 013 ID: 8839652 DktE ntry:11 Pag e: 2o 3

m otionis gra nted. TheClerkshall am end thedocket t refle ctthatattorneys

M arcusandBerga reno longer counselofrecord forappel le esPhilipJ. BergandTheLaw OfficesofPhili pJ. Berg . Addit io nally , th eClerkshall update thedocketto refle ctthatthebusiness addre ss fo r appelleeTheLaw Officesof Philip J. Bergis: 555A ndorraGle nCourt, Suite 12, Lafa yette Hil l, Pennsylv ania 19444-2531.

Todate, appel lees Phil ip J. BergandThe Law Offic es of Phil ip J. Berghavenotfiled anyresponse to the A ugust 6 2013Motion. W ithin 21 da ys after th edate

of this ord er, appellees Philip J. BergandTheLaw Officesof Phili p J. Bergsh allrespondtoth eMotion. Theresponseshall sta tewhether appelleePhil ip J. Bergseek storepresent TheLaw Offic esofPhil ipJ. Berg inaprosecapacity and,ifso,th e le gal basis fo rtheprose representatio n. f In reHighley 459F.2 d554,5559th Cir. 1972) acorporationmust b e represente dby counsel) ;Church ofhe New

Testa mentv United S ta tes 783 F.2d771, 773 9thCir. 1986) unin corporate dassocia tio ns m ust berepresente d b y counsel); Lic ht v Am. WestA irl ines 40F.3d

1058, 1059 9th Cir. 1994) percuria m) a partn erm aynot represent his or her

ow ninterestina partnershipprose ; United Statesv High CountryBroad. Co. 3

F.3d 1244, 1245 9th Cir. 1993) per curiam) asole sharehold er m ay notrepresent

a corporatio npro se).

jp MOATT 2



20/68

Case: 13 56250 10/28/2013 ID: 8839652 DktEntry: Page: 3of 3

Failureto respond to this order m ay result in the w aiver of all claim s andargum ents in thisappeal byT he L a w Officesof Philip J Berg

Briefing is stayedpending further court order

jp /M OATT

FOR THEC OUR T:MO YC DWYER

LERKO F C O U R T By: Jessica PerryD eputy Clerk



21/68

EXHIB IT C



22/68

Case: 13 56250 08/06/2013 ID 8732730 DktEntry: 6 Page: 1 of9

STEPHEN H. MAR CUS, ESQ. [CSBN 48294]R A N D Y A. B E R G ,ESQ. [CSBN 128445]GITTLER B R A D FO RD10537 Santa M onica Blvd., Third FloorLos Angeles, CA 90025Telephone 310)474-4007e-mail: [email protected] ttomeys for Plaintiffs/RespondentsLISALlBERI, LISAM OSTELLA, and GO EX C E LGLOBAL,

IN THE N IN T H C IRCUIT C O U RT OFAPPEALS

Case N o. 13-56250D EFEND OUR FR EE D O M S FOU N D A TION

Appellant/Defendantv

LISA LIBERI PHILIPB ERG LIS A OSTELLA LAWOFFICES OF PHILIPBERG G O EX C E L G LO B A L

R espond ents/P laintiffs

O PPO SITIO N TO MOTIONFORD EC LAR A TO RY RELIEFR EG A R D IN G R EPR ESEN TA TIO N OFLISA LIB ER I LISAO STELLA

AND G O E X C E L GLOBA L



23/68

Case: 1356250 08/06/2013 ID : 8732730 DktEntry: 6 Page: 3 of 9

counselfor Philip Berg.

4 T he Law offices ofPhilip Berg is not aseparate entity, but afictitiousbusinessn ame of Philip Berg, andis represented byPhilip Berg, n pro per

5 The nature ofth eentity ofGo Excel Globalis not anissue beforethisCourt or an issue ra ised in the Appellant'sappeal. Rather, ifAppellant believesthis is a valid issue (as opposed t anattempt to harass the Respondents), it shouldbe raised at the appropriate timeb y appropriate motion in the District Court.

Respectfullysubmitted,STEPHEN H.MARCUS ESQ .RANDY A. B E R G E S Q.m embers of

L E R B ~ ~ ~ A t t o m ~ t i f f s R e s p o n d e n t sL ISA LIBERI LISA M. OSTELLA andGOEXCELG L O B A L



24/68

EXHIBIT D



25/68

a s e ~ 11-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 231 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 25 Page ID:6391

1 Philip J. Berg, Esquire2 Email: [email protected] Identification No. 098673 LAWOFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG4 555Andorra GlenCourt, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-25315 Ph: 610) 825-31346 Fx: 610) 834-7659

:u (' )-< o 1Attorney for Plain tiffs ~ ~

' > .- -"'2 ~ :>-i 1;P7

89

UNITEDS T A T E S DISTRICT C O U R T ~ g ~FOR THE C E N T R A L DISTRICTOF A L I F O ~

SOUTHERNDIVISION1

LISALIBERI11 and12 LISA M. OSTELLA,and13 GO EXCEL GLOBAL14 and

CIVIL ACTIONNO .8:11-cv-00485-AG (A JWx)JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

...l

.. .c::z:_,-uz

co

15 PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIREandPL A INTIFFS F I R S T A M EN D E DCOMPL INT

16 THE LAWOFFICES OF PHILIP J.17 BERG Plaintiffs, :18 vs.19 ORLYTAITZ alk/aDR. ORLY TAITZ :2 and21 LAWOFFICES OFORLY TAITZ

and22 ORLY TAITZ, INC .23 and24 DEFENDOUR FREEDOMSFOUNDATIONS, INC.25 and26 NEIL SANKEY

and27 SANKEY INVESTIGATIONS, INC .28 and

Liber i. el q l v. Taitz t al Case No. 8: 11-cv-00485 (AG), Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint 1

..-r 110



26/68

Case 8: 1-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 231 Filed 06/17/11 Page 2 of 25 Page 1:6392

I TODD SANKEY2 andTHE SANKEY FIRM INC.3 and4 REED ELSEVIER INC.and5 LEXISNEXIS GROUP INC. a6 Division o Reed Elsevier Inc.and7 LEXISNEXIS INC. a Division o8 Reed Elsevier Inc.and9 LEXISNEXIS RISK and

10 INFORMA.TION ANALYTICS11 GROUP INC.and12 LEXISNEXIS SEISINT INC. d/b/a13 ACCURINT a Division o Reed

Elsevier Inc.14 and15 LEXISNEXIS CHOICEPOINT INC. a :16 Division o Reed Elsevier Inc.and17 LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS18 INC. a Division o Reed Elsevier Inc.and19 INTELIUS INC.20 andORACLE CORPORATION21 and22 DAYLIGHT CHEMICAL23 INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC.and24 YOSEF T AITZ individually and as25 Owner/CEO o Daylight ChemicalInformation Systems Inc.26 and27 DOES 1 through 186 INCLUSIVE28 Defendants. .

Liberi et al v Taitz el al Case No. 8: 11-cv-00485 AG), Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint 2



27/68

Case 8 1-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 23 Filed 06/17/11 Page 3 o f 25 Page ID:6393

I23456789

1112

1314156

1718192021222324

25262728

PL INTIFFS FIRSTA M E N D E D COMPL INTI. N TURE OF CTIONl This isan action for dam ages, including permanent injunctive relie

againstDefendants Orly Taitz alk/aDr. Orly Taitz, Orly Taitz,Inc., Law Offices oOrly Taitz D efend our Freedoms Foundations, Inc., Neil Sankey, Todd Sankey,Sankey Investigations, Inc. and The Sankey Firm, Inc. for illegal access toPlaintiffs private data; the publication ofPlaintiffs private data; Invasion oPrivacy; Invasionof Plaintiffs rights to Solitude; Placing Pla intiffs in a False Light;Disclosure ofPrivate facts; Cyber-bully in g; Cyber-stalking; Cyber-H arassment;Slander; Libel; Defamation; MaliciousProsecution; Abuse of Process; IntentionalInfliction of Emotional Distress; and against Defendants, Reed Elsevier, Inc.;LexisN exis Group, Inc.; LexisN exis, Inc., LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.;

LexisNexis Risk InformationAnalytics Group, Inc.; Seisint, Inc. d.b. a. Accurint;ChoicePoint, Inc.; Intelius, Inc.; Daylight Chemical Information System s, Inc;Yosef Taitz; and Oracle Corporation seeking compensa tory; statutory penalties;and punitive damages due to Defendants' systematic and willful violation of intalia the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 1681, et seq.; theCalifornia Information Practices Act, Cali fornia Civil Code 1798 et. Seq.; theCalifornia Investigative Consumer Reporting AgenciesAct ( ICRAA ); CaliforniaCivil Code 1786 et seq.; the California Consum er Reporting Agencies Ac

Liberi. t ql v Tairz. eta/. Case No. 8:11-cv-00485 AG), Plaintiffs First Amended omplaint 3



28/68

Case 8 1-cv-00485-AG -AJW Document 231 Filed 06/17/11 Page 4 of 25 Page ID:6394

1 ( CCRAA ), California Civil Code 1785.11, 1785.14, 1785.19 and 1785.22;2 Unfair Business Practices in violation o California Business Code 17200 et seq;34 Negligence, California Civil Code 1714(a); Breach o Duty, California Civil

6Code 1714(a); Invasion o Privacy; Right to be Let Alone (Right to Privacy);Defamation; Libel; Slander; Res Ipsa Loquitor Negligence and Emotional Distress.7

89

111

This action also seeks to redress Defendants' unlawful invasion o theconstitutional, common law and statutory privacy rights o the Plaintiffs understate and federal law; and seeks restitution and injunctive relief pursuant to the

12 FCRA, CCRAA and California Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. and13 to enjoin all the Defendants' unlawful conduct; recovery o actual damages;1415 statutory damages; civil damages; punitive damages and other damages for16 Defendants' unlawful acts, disgorgement o all unjust gains and attorney fees and1718 costs.19 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE:2 2. This Court has general jurisdiction o this action pursuant to the2122 provisions o the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), 15 U.S.C. 168lp, Federal232425262728

Question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under28 U .S.C. 1332. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction to consider claimsarising under California State Law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.

Liberi el a/ v Tailz et al Case No. 8: 11-cv-00485 AG), Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint 4



29/68

Case :11 cv00485 AG AJW Document 231 Filed 06/17/11 Page 5 of 25 Page ID:6395

1 3. Venue as to Defendants is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 152 U.S.C. 1681p and 28 U.S.C. 1391. Defendants reside in this District within the34 meaning o 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c), and they transact business, have agents,56

and otherwise have sufficient contacts within this District to subject them topersonal jurisdiction herein. Moreover, the events outlined herein occurred in the7

8 State o California.9

1011

III. P RTIES4. Plaintiff, Lisa Liberi [hereinafter Liberi ] is an adult individual who

12 resides in the State o New Mexico and has since early November 2002;1314 5. Plaintiff, Go Excel Global, is owned and operated by Lisa Ostella,15 with a business address o 2227 US Highway 1 #245, North Brunswick, NJ16 08902-4402;1718 6. Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter at times Berg ] is an19 adult individual who resides in the State o Pennsylvania;2021

7. Plaintiff, The Law Offices o Philip J. Berg is a law firm, with a staff,22 owned and operated by Plaintiff Philip J. Berg, with a business address o 55523 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12, Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531;2425 8. Plaintiff, Lisa M. Ostella [hereinafter Ostella ] is an adult individual26 who resides in the State o New Jersey;2728

Libri. eta v. Tajtz. et a/ Case No. 8: 11-cv-00485 (AG), Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint 5



30/68

C ase No. 13-56253

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OFAPPEALSFOR THEN I N T H CIRCUIT

Lis a Liberi, etal. ,Plaintif fs/Appellees,

vs.Orly Taitz, etal.,

Defendant/Appellant.__________________________

A_ppeal from th e United StatesDistric t Cou rt forthe CentralDis trict of CaliforniaCiv il Action No.: 8:11-CV-00485-AG (AJWx)

EMERGENCYMOTIONU N D E R CIRCUIT R U L E 27-3 BYAPPELLANT,ORLY TAITZ, FOR ORDER B A R R I N G GITTLER BRA DFORD FROMR E P R E S E N T I N G APPELLEES LISA LIBERI LISA OSTELLA AND GO

EXCEL G LO BAL, IN THEA L T E R N A T I V ECLARIFY IN GR E P R E S E N T A T IO N OFSU C H PLAIN TIFFS, ANDSTAYINGBRIEFING

SCH EDULE; CERTIFICATION PU RSUANT TOCIRCUIT R U L E 27-3;M E M O R AN D U M OF POINTS AND A U T H O R ITIES; SU PPORTIN G

D E C L A R A T I O N

Kim Schumarn Esq . CSBN 170942e f f ~ G ~ n m n g h CSB N 151067SCHUMANN . R O ~ E N B E R G LLP3100 S.Bristol St. Suite 100Costa M esa, CA 9L6 6(7 14) 850-0210- telephone(714) 850-0551- faxCounsel for D efendant/Appellant,OrlyTaitz



31/68

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 27 3Defendant and Appellant, ORLY TAITZ ( Taitz ), respectfully submits this

Certification regarding her Emergency Motion for an Order disqualifying Gittler& Bradford, Stephen H Marcus, Esq. and Randy Berg, Esq. from representingPlaintiffs and Appellees, LISA LIBERI, LISA OSTELLA and GO EXCELGLOBAL (collectively Plaintiffs ), due to the absence of any Substitution ofAttorney or Request for Approval of Substitution or Withdrawal ofCounselsigned by Plaintiffs substituting such counsel in place of Plaint iff and Appellee,PHILIP J BERG ( Berg ). Berg previously represented Plaintiffs but is barredfrom further representing them due to suspension of his license to practice law inhis home State of Pennsylvania.

In addition, there is no Order, including any issued by the District Court(Hon. Andrew Guilford, Judge), substituting Gittler Bradford in place ofBergas counsel for Plaintiffs.

In the alternative to barring Gittler Bradford from representing Plaintiffsin this appeal, Taitz seeks an Order clarifying representation of Plaintiffs given theabsence of any Substitution ofAttorney or Order allowing same.

Taitz also seeks an Order staying the briefing schedule in this matter,pending resolution of issues regarding representation of and participation byPlaintiffs in this appeal.

1 The telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, and office addresses of theattorneys for the parties are as follows: (a) Gittler Bradford, Stephen H. Marcus,Esq. and Randy Berg, Esq., 10537 Santa Monica Blvd., Third Floor, Los Angeles,C 90025-4999, (310) 474-4007, [email protected] and [email protected] forPlaintiffs/Appellees, LISA LIBERI, LISA OSTELLA and GO EXCEL GLOBAL;(b) Philip J Berg, 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12, Lafayette Hill, P 19444-



32/68

2531, (610) 825-3134,[email protected], for Plaintiff/Appellee, PHILIP JBERG; and (c) Plaintiff/Appel lee , LAW OFFICES OFPHILIP J BERG , 555A ndorra Glen C ourt, Suite 12, Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531, (610) 825-3134,[email protected].

2 t is necessary for Taitz to seek rel ief herein onan emergency basispursuant to Circuit Ru le 27-3. A S cheduling O rder has been issued in this matterrequiring Tai tz ' s Opening Briefand Excerpts of Recordto be filed and served byDecember 24, 2013. Therefore, there is less than twenty-one (21) days for there l ief sought byTaitz to be considered and issued before the present December 24,2013 deadline .

3 Further, Defendant/Appellant, DEFEN D O U R FR EED O MSFO U N D A TIONS ( DO FF ) (represented by Taitz), has filed a related appeal(Liberi, e t al. v. Taitz.et al.; Cas e No. 13-56250). DO FF has filed a M otion in thatappeal requestingvarious relief, includingto b ar Gittler Bradford fromrepresenting Plaintiffs, or alternatively to clarify representation ofthem in thatappeal. The C ourt of Appeal has issuedan Order requiring Berg to file a responseto the Motion, includingto state whether he seeksto represent the Berg Offices,and to st ybriefing until further Order. See, Exhibit B hereto.

4 Berg hasnot, as required, filed any response to DOFF s M otion, andis thusbarred fromrepresenting the Berg Offices. The O rder also provides thatfailure to respond to it may result in the w aiver of allclaims and arguments inthe

appeal by The Law Offices ofPhilip J Berg. ( Exhibit B Order,pg. 3.) Th eC ourt of A ppeals is considering that issue, as wellas DOFF s other requests forre lief includingbut not l imited to representation ofPlaintiffs inDO FF' s appeal.The partiesare accordingly aw aiting a further O rder on DO FF 's Motion.

5 As explained, DOFFs M otion is pendin g in Case No. 13 -56250, with



33/68

the Court o Appeals considering it and not yet having issued a second Order on it,including on the issues raised herein. Such Order likely will affect handling o thisappeal. For this additional reason, Taitz is proceeding pursuant to Circuit Rule 27-3 where the Motion in DOFF s appeal is pending, and the second Order on saidMotion may not be issued until after the December 24, 2013 deadline in Taitz sappeal particularly where briefing in DOFF s appeal is stayed Taitz thereforecertifies that to avoid irreparable harm relief is needed in less than twenty-one (21)days.

6. Commencing on December 3, 2013, Taitz s counsel has met andconferred via email with all other counsel. Plaintiffs counsel on December 42013 responded to Taitz s counsel s email. The parties have been unable toresolve the issues presented herein. Further, all Plaintiffs through their counsel arebeing served with Taitz s Motion.

7. The relief sought by Taitz, regarding representation o Plaintiffs inher appeal, was not available in the District Court.

8. On December 5 2013, Taitz s counsel informed the Court o AppealsMotion Unit (Stephanie, Staff Attorney) o this and Taitz s concurrently-filedMotions and o the emergency basis for submission o them.

Dated: December 6 2013 Is/ - Jeffrey P. Cunningham~ ~ ~ ~ ~Ktm S c h u m a n n ~ Esq.Jeffrey P. Cunnmgham, EsqAttorneys for Defendant nAppellant, ORLY T lTZ



34/68

M E M O R A N D U M O F PO INTSANDAU TH O RITIESDefendant and Appellant,ORLY TAITZ ( Taitz ), respectfully submits this

Emergency M otionfor anOrder disqualify ing Gittler Bradford, StephenHM arcus, Esq. and Randy Berg, Esq . fromrepresenting Plaintiffs and Appellees,LISA LIBERI,LISAOSTELLA and GO EXCEL GLOBAL (collectivelyPlaintiffs ), due to the absence o an ySubstitutiono Attorneyo r Requestfor

Approval o Substitutionor Withdraw al o Counsel signed byPlaintiffssubstituting such counselin place o Plaintiff andAppellee, PHILIPJ BERG( Berg ). Berg previously represented Plaintiffsbut isbarredfromfurtherrepresenting themdue to suspensiono his license to practice lawin hishomeState o Pennsylvania.

In addition, there is no Order, includingany issued by theDistrict Court(H on. Andrew Guilford, Judge), substitutingGittler Bradfordin place o Bergas counsel forPlaintiffs.

In the alternativeto barring Gittler Bradford from representing Plaintiffsin this appeal, Taitz seeks anOrderclarifying representationo Plaintiffs given theabsence o any Substitutiono Attorneyor Order allowingsame.

Taitz also seeks an O rder stayingthe briefingschedule inthis matter,pendingresolution o issues regardingrepresentation o and participation byPlaintiffs in this appeal.I Introduction

Taitzhas appealed fromthe June 18, 2013 Order o th e District Court (Hon.A ndrew Guilford, Judge) denying her Motion to strike under CaliforniaCodeoCivilProcedure section425.16 challenging the First Amended Complaint oPlaintiffs,Berg and Plaintiffand Appellee, LAW OFFICESOF PHILIPJ BERG(the BergOffices ).



35/68

Bergformerly represented allPlaintiffs.However, on June 19 20 13, Berg'slicense to pra ctice law issuedby his homestate of Pennsylvania was suspendedfortw oyears. See, Exhibit A hereto. Berg,thus, cannot representany other party.II. The C ourt o Appeals in R elated Case No 13-56250 Is Considering the

Simila r M otion o AppeiJant,Defend Our FteedomsFoundations, andShould ConsiderThe SameIssues and Re lief in T his CaseDefendant andA ppellant, DEFEND O U R FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS

( DOFF), has fileda related appeal (Liberi, et al. v. Tai tz, et al.; Case No. 13-56250).

DOFF has filed a M otion in that appeal requesting variousrelief, inclu dingto bar Gittler Bradford from representing Plaintiffs, or altern atively to clarifyrepresentation of them in that appeal. The Court ofAppeal has issued an OrderrequiringBerg to filearesponse tothe Motion, includingtostate wheth er he seeksto represent the BergOffices, andto s t y brie fing until fu rther Order. See,

Exhibit B hereto .Amongthe issues being considered on DO FF 's Motion is the same relief

sought herein by Taitz, as identified above. The parties are accordingly awaiting afurther Order on DO FF 'sMotion. Thus, this Court in Taitz's appeal shouldconsider and grant to her the samerelief beingconsidered inDO FF 's appeal,including as to representation of Plaintiffs herein.III There is No R equired Substitution o Attorney,Request for Approval o

Substitution or Withdrawal o Counsel, Nor Order Substituting Gittle rBradfo rdin Placeo Berg as C ounsel for PlaintiffsBerg represented allPlaintiffs inthis case unti l his license to practicewas

suspended inhis home state of Pennsylvania on or about June19, 2013. See,ExhibitA hereto. Berg, thus, cannot represent any other party.



36/68

Bergs suspension thusrequired formal substitu t ion of counsel in his p lacefor P laintiffs, via Substitu t ion of Attorney, Request for App roval of Substitutiono r W ithdrawal of Counsel. Gittler Bradford (StephenH. Marcus,Esq. andR an dy Berg, Esq.) purpo rt torepresent Plaintiffs, bu tdo not due to lack of anySubstitution of A ttorney, R eque st for Approval of Substitution orWithdrawalofCounsel , appointing them as such inplace of Berg.

For example, the Local Rulesof the Central District ofCalifornia provide inrelevant part:

1 L.R. 83-2.3.1 Appearance by Attorney. Whenever apartyhasappeared by anattorney, the party maynot thereafter appear or a ct pro se, exceptupon order made by the Court after notice to suchattorney and to any otherparties whohaveappeared inthe action.

There isno O rder un der this Ruleregardingrepresentation of PlaintiffsfollowingBerg s suspension.

2 L.R. 83-2.3.2 Motion for Withdrawal. An a ttorney may not withdrawascounsel except by leaveofcourt. napplicationfor leave towithdraw must bemade upon writtennoticegiven reasonably nadvanceto theclient and to allother part ies who haveappeared n the action.

There isno O rder un der this Ru le regardingwithdrawalof Be rg as counselfor Plaintiffsfollowing his suspension.

3. L.R. 83-2.3.3 Individuals. When an attorney of ecord for anyreason ceases toact for a p arty, such party m ust appear pro se o r appoint anotherattorneyby a writtensubstitution o(a t tornevsignedbv the par ty andtheattornevs. (Emphasis added.)

This Ruleapplies to Liberi and O stella. The reis no required S ubsti tution ofA ttorney (or Reque st for Approval of Substitution o r Withdraw al of Counse l)



37/68

appointing counsel for Liberi or Ostella, including Gittler & Bradford, in place ofBerg following his suspension.

4. L.R. 83-2.3.4 Organizations. n attorney requesting leave towithdraw from representation ofan organization ofany kind (includingcorporations, limited liability corporations, partnerships, limited liabilitypartnerships, unincorporated associations, trusts) must give written notice to theorganization of he consequences of ts inability to appear pro se.

This Rule applies to Go Excel Global. There is no required Substitution ofAttorney (or Request for Approval of Substitution or Withdrawal of Counsel)appointing any counsel for Go Excel Global, including Gittler Bradford, inplace ofBerg following his suspension, nor evidence of this required notice to GoExcel Global.

Further, Go Excel Global claims to be an entity of an unspecified type thatcannot, as a matter of law, represent itself. t must be represented herein bylicensed legal counsel.

A corporation must be represented by counsel. In re Highley, 459 F.2d 554,555 9th Cir. 1972). An unincorporated association must be represented by counsel.Church of he New Testament v United States, 783 F.2d 771, 773 9th Cir. 1986).A partner may not represent his or her own interest in a partnership pro se. Licht vAm. West Airlines, 40 F. 3d 1058, 1059 9th Cir. 1994). A sole shareholder may notrepresent a corporation prose. United States v High Country Broad Co., 3 F.3d1244, 1245 9th Cir. 1993). Thus, Go Excel Global cannot appear in prose andmust be represented by counsel.Plaintiffs may contend that representation of them by Gittler & Bradford hasbeen accomplished by Order in the District Court, but this contention ifmade)would be incorrect. There is no such Order.



38/68

Moreover, if there was an Order from the District Court purporting toappoint Gittler Bradford as Plaintiffs' counsel, this would be a nullity andinsufficient to accomplish same where the applicable Rules require writtensubstitution o attorney signed by the party and the attorneys as to Liberi andOstella and the written notice to Organizations required by L.R. 83-2.3.4 as toGo Excel Global.

Compounding Gittler Bradford's failure to comply with theserequirements, is the lack of any writing or other evidence establishing that Liberiand Ostella even know that Berg can longer represent them and that GittlerBradford purport to represent them.

Under these circumstances, an Order disqualifying Gittler Bradford,Stephen H. Marcus, Esq. and Randy Berg, Esq. from representing Plaintiffs shouldissue or, in the alternative, clarifying representation of Plaintiffs given the absenceof any Substitution of Attorney or Order allowing same. As stated, this same issueis being considered by this Court in DOFF s related appeal and should beconsidered herein.IV. The Brieimg Schedule n Taitz's Appeal Should Be Stayed, as Has Been

Ordered in DOFF's Appeal, Pending Resolution o Issues RegardingRepresentation o PlaintiffsThe effect of Berg s suspension on his ability to represent Plaintiffs, as well

as regarding Gittler Bradford's purported representation of Plaintiffs, are keyissues herein that should be decided before proceeding with the parties filingbriefs and their Excerpts of Record.This Court has so recognized in issuing its Order in DOFF s appeal, whichincludes to stay briefing in that related matter until such issues are resolved. See,

Exhibit B hereto.



39/68

Moreover, the filingof this M otionresults ina stay beingi mposed pursuantto Circuit Rule 27-11, w hich providesin relevant part: Motions requestingthetypes ofre l ief noted be low sh ll st y the schedule or recordprep r t ion ndbriefing pendingtheCourt s disposition ofthe m otion: ... (6) appointment orw ithdrawal of counsel. (Em phasis added.)

Taitz sM otion concerns appointm ent of counsel for Plaintiffs in thatseeks to reso lvewho, ifanycounsel, will represent them in the appeal. talsoconcerns w ithdrawal ofcounsel regarding the B erg O ffices with regard toBergs inability to represent Plainti ffs.

Thus, und erC ircuit Rule27-11, the filing of thisMotion operates to staythebriefingscheduleherein.V onclusion

For the reasons stated herein,Taitz respectfully subm its that an O rdershould issue disqualify in gGittler Bradford,Stephe n H. M arcus, Esq. and RandyBerg, Esq. from representing Plaintiffs or, inthealternative,clarifyingrepresentation of Plaintiffs ands taying theb riefing schedule in thisappealpendingresolution of these issues.

Dated: Decem ber 6, 2013Is Jeffrey P. Cunningham

By:__________________________K im Schum ann EsqJeff re yP. Cun mngham ,Attorn eys for D erendantanaAppellant, O R LYT A ITZ



40/68

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY P CUNNINGHAIVfr ESQ SUPPORTINGMOTION B Y PLAINTIFF AND APPELLAN ,ORLY T AITZI Jeffrey P Cunningham, declare as follows:1. I aman attorneyduly licensedto practice law in all courts of the State

ofCalifornia andthe United States Courts for the Nin th Circuit,and am a Partnerin the law offices of Schumann Rosenberg, LLP, counsel for DefendantandAppellant, ORLY TAITZ("Taitz"). Imake this declaration based on mypersonalknowledgeof the facts stated herein . I gained my knowledgeof those facts byvirtue of my participation in the events describ ed herein, my preparation o r reviewof the documents described herein , or some combinationof the foregoing asidentifi ed herein. Ifcalled to testify to the facts stated herein, I could and woulddoso competently and truthfully.

2. This declarationis submitted in support of Taitz 'sMotion for anOrder disqualifying Git tler Bradford, StephenH. Marcus, Esq. and Randy Berg,Esq. fromrepresenting P laintiffs and Appellees, LISA LIB ERI, LISAOSTELLAand GOEXCEL GLOBAL (collectively "Plaintiffs"), orin the altern ativeclarifying representation of Plaintiffs. Taitz also seeks an Order staying thebrie fing schedule in this matter, pendingresolutionof issues regardingrepresentationof and parti cipation byPlaintiffs inthis appeal.

3. I have readand am familiar with all pleadings and orders intheunderlyingcase in theDistrict Court (Hon. Andrew Guilford , Judge). P laintiff andAppellee,PHILIP J BERG ("Berg ") represented Plaintiffs , him self andP laintiffand Appellee, LAW OFFICESOF PHILIPJ. BERG (the"Berg Offices") in thiscaseuntil his license to practic e was suspended in hishome state of Pennsylvaniaonor about June 19, 2013.

4. Ihave read andam familiar with the pleadings and orders filedinB erg's discip linary matter . A true andcorrect copyof the Order of the Supreme

1



41/68

C ourt of Pennsy lvania in Office ofDiscipl inary Counsel v Berg is attached heretoas Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by th is reference as though fully setforth.

5. Gittler& Bradford,Stephen H. Marcus, Esq. and RandyBerg, Esq.purport to rep resent Plaintiffsin this m atter. However ,there is no Substitution ofA ttorney or R equest for Approval of Substitution or Withdrawal of Counselsigned by Plaintiffs and filed with theCourt substitut ing such counsel in placeB erg fol lowing his suspension. In addition, thereis no O rder substituting G ittlerBradford inplace of B erg as counsel for Plaintif fs.

6 Defendant/Appellant , DEFEN D OUR F RE ED O M S F O U N D A T I O NS( DOFF ) (represented by Taitz ), has fileda related appeal (Liberi,et al. v Taitz.et al.; Case No. 13-56250). I have read andamfamiliar with the p leadings andM otions filed inthat appeal. DO FF has fi led a Mo tion in that appeal requestingvarious relief, including todisqualifyingG it tler & Bradford, Stephen H. Marcus,Esq. and R andy B erg, Esq. from representing Plaintiffs, orin the alternativeclarifyingrepresentation of Plaintiffs.

7. I ha veread and am familiar with DOFF's M otion, theOpposit ion andR eplyregardingit in its app eal , and the O rder on sam e. A true andcorrect copy ofthat Orde r is a ttached hereto as Exhibit B and isincorporatedherein by thisreference as though fully set forth. Am ong the i ssues being considered on DOFF'sM otion is the same re l ie f sought herein by Taitz,as identified above. T hepartiesare accordingly await inga further Order on DOFF's Motion.

8 t is necessary for Taitzto seek relief herein o nan emergency basispursuant to C ircuit R u le 27-3. A S cheduling O rder has been issued in this matterrequirin gTaitz's O pening Briefand Excerpts of Recordto be filed and served byD ecember 24, 2013. Therefore, the re is le ss than twenty-one (21)days for the



42/68

relief sought by Taitz to be considered and issued before the present December 24,20 13 deadline.

9 As explained, DOFF s Motion is pending in Case No. 13-56250, withthe Court of Appeals considering it and not yet having issued a second Order on it.Such Order likely will affect handling of this appeal. For this additional reason,Taitz is proceeding pursuant to Circuit Rule 27-3 where the Motion in DOFF sappeal is pending, and the second Order on said Motion may not be issued untilafter the December 24, 2013 deadline in Tai tz s appeal particularly where briefingin DOFF s appeal is stayed Taitz therefore certifies that to avoid irreparable harmrelief is needed in less than twenty-one (21) days.

10. Commencing on December 3, 2013, Taitz s counsel has met andconferred via email with all other counsel. Plaintiffs counsel on December 4,2013 responded to Taitz s counsel s email. The parties have been unable toresolve the issues presented herein. Further, all Plaintiffs through their counsel arebeing served with Taitz s Motion.

11. The relief sought by Taitz, regarding representation of Plaintiffs inthis appeal, was not available in the District Court.

12. On December 5, 2013, Taitz s counsel informed the Court of AppealsMotion Unit (Stephanie, Staff Attorney) of this and Taitz s concurrently-filedMotions and of the emergency basis for submission of them.

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State ofCalifornia and of the United States of America that the above is true and correct.Executed on December 6, 2013, in Costa Mesa, California.

2

Is/ - Jeffrey P. CunninghamBy: _____________________Jeffrey P. Cunningham, Esq.Declarant



43/68

EXHIBIT A



44/68

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 636-1 Filed 06/21/13 Page 1 of 17 Page ID#:16000

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL No. 1928 Disciplinary Docket No. 3PetitionerNo. 208 DB 2010v.Attorney Registration No. 9867

PHILIP J. BERG.Respondent (Montgomery County)

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 19m day of June, 2013. upon consideration of the Report andRecommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated March 8. 2013. respondent'sObjections and Exceptions and response thereto. the request for oral argumen1 isdenied and it is hereby

ORDERED that Philip J Berg is suspended from the Bar of this Commonwealthfor a period of two years and he shall comply with an he provisions of Rule 217.Pa.R.D.E.

t is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Boardpursuant to Rule 208(g). Pa.R.D.E.

A ~ opy Pa111Ci l NiColaA Of 6/19rJ 013r.u z dJ.)~ ~ t ~ e ~ l CSupreme Court of Penn5 (fvanra



45/68

EXHIBIT B



46/68

Case:13-56250 10/28 /2013 ID: 8839652 DktEntry 11

UNITED S TA TES COURTOFA P P EA L SFOR THENINTH C I R C U IT

LISA LIBERI ;et al., No. 13-56250

Page: 1of 3FILEOCT 28 2 13

MOLLY C DW YER CLERKU.S COURT OF A P PEALS

Plaintif fs - A ppellees,v

D .C. No. 8: 11-cv-00 485-A G -AJW C entralDistrict of C aliforn ia,S anta Ana

ORLY TA ITZ, AKA Dr. OrlyTaitz; et al.,Defendants,

andDEFENDOUR FREEDOMSF O U N D A TI ON S , INC .,

D efendant- A ppellant.

ORDER

T he court hasreceived appellant 's u rgent motion fordeclaratory andin junctive relief, filed August 6, 2013 (the M otion ), the opposi tion of appelleesLisa Liberi, LisaM . Ostella, and GoExcel Global, filedAugust 6, 2013 (theO pposition ), a nd appellan t 's rep ly in suppor tof theMotion.

T hecourtconstrues theOpposition ,in part, as a m otionofStephen H .M arcus, Esq. , andR a ndy A. B erg, Esq., towithdraw as retainedcounsel forappellees Philip J. B erg and TheL a w O fficesof Philip J Berg. So construed ,the

jp/M O ATT



47/68

Case : 13 56250 10/2 8/2 013 ID: 8839652 DktEntry: 11 Page : 2 o f3

m otio nis gra nted. T heC lerkshall am endth edockettoreflectt hat atto rneys

M arcus and B ergare no longer counselofre cord for appelleesPhilip1 Berg and

TheLaw O ffic esofPhilip1 Berg. A ddit ionally,theClerkshall update th edocketto reflectth at th e businessaddre ss for appellee T he L aw Offices of Phil ip 1 B ergis: 55 5 AndorraG len Court, Suite 12, Lafayette Hil l, Pennsylvania 19444-2531.

To date, appell ees Philip J B erga ndThe L aw Offices ofPhil ip J Berghavenotfiled any response to the A ugust6, 20 13 M otion. Wit hin 21 day safter thedate

ofthis ord er, appellees Phili p1 B erga nd TheL aw Officesof Philip J Bergshallrespond totheMotion. T he response shall st ate w heth era ppelle ePhili pJ. B erg

seeks torepresent T he L aw Offic es of Phil ip J Berg in ap rosecapacit yan d, ifso,the legal basisfor the prose representa tion. f In re Highley 459F.2d554, 5559th Cir. 1972) a corporationmust be represente dbycounsel) ;Churchof heNew

Testament v United Sta tes 78 3 F .2d771, 773 9thCir. 1986) unincorporatedassocia tio ns m ustb erepresented by counsel); Lichtv Am. WestAir lines 40F.3d

1058, 1059 9th Cir. 1994) perc uria m ) a partnerm ayno t represent his o r h er

ow n in terest in a partnershipprose ;UnitedS ta tes v Hig h Countr yBroad. Co. 3

F.3d 1244, 1245 9th Cir. 1993) per curiam) asole shareholdermay no t represent

acorporati on prose .

jp MOATT 2



48/68

Case: 13 56250 10/28/2013 ID: 8839652 DktEntry: 11 Page: 3 of 3

Failure to respond to thisorder may result inthe waiver o all claims andarguments in thisappeal by The Law Offices o Philip J Berg

Briefing isstayed pending further court order

jp MOATT 3

F O R TH E COURT :M O L LY C D W Y E RCLER K OF COU RTBy: Jessica PerryDeputy Clerk



49/68

Case No. 13-56253

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE N IN TH CIRCUIT

Lisa Liberi, et al.,Plaintiffs/Appellees,

vs.Orl y Taitz, et al.,

Defendant/Appellant.__________________________)

Appealfrom the United StatesDistrict Court for the CentralDistrict of California CivilAction No.: 8:11-CV-00485-AG AJWx)

EMERGENCY MOTIONU N D E R CIRCUIT R U L E27-3 BYAPPELLANTORLY TAITZ FOR ORDER DISQ U ALIFYING APPELLEE PHILIP J.

B E R G FROMREPRESENTING APPELLEE LAW O FF IC E S OF PHILIPJ. BERG AND STA Y IN G BRIEFING SC H EDULE; CERTIFICATION

PURSU AN T TO CIRCUIT RULE27-3; M E M O R A ND U M OF PO INTS ANDA U T H O R I T I ES ; SUPPO R T I N G D E C LA R A T I O N

Kim Schumann, Esq. , CSB N 170942e f f r ~ C u n n i n g a m ; . . E ~ g . CSBN 151067

SCHUM ANN L R O ~ E N B E R G LLP3100 S. Bristol St. .. Suite 100Costa M esa, CA 9L6 6714) 850-0210- telephone714) 850-0551 -faxCounselfor Defendant/Appellant,Orly Taitz



50/68

C ER TIFICA TIONP URSUAN T T O R ULE 27 3D efendant andAppellant, ORLYTA ITZ( Taitz ) ,respectfullysubm it s this

C ertificat ionregarding her Em ergencyM otion for a n O rder d isqualifyingPlain tiffan d A ppellee, PH ILIP J BERG( B erg ),from representingPlain tiff andA ppellee, LAW O FFIC ES OFPH ILIP J. BERG( B ergO ffic es ), due to Bergs suspensionof his license to pract icelawin hishom eStateofPennsylvania. Taitzalsoseeksan O rder staying the briefing schedule in this matter, pending resolutionofissues regarding representationof andparticipation bythe B erg O ffices inthisappeal.

1 The telephone num bers,e-mail addresses, and office addresses oftheattorneys fo r thepartiesare asfollows: (a) Git tler & B radford, StephenH. M arcus,Esq. and R andyBerg , Esq., 10537Santa M onica B lvd., Third Floor, Los A ngeles,CA90025-4999, (310)474-4007, smarcus@ gblaw .net andraberg@ gblaw.net. forP laintiffs/A ppellees, LISA LIBE R I, L ISA O ST EL LA andGOEX C E LG LO BA L;(b ) Philip J B erg, 555 A ndorraGlen Court, Suite12, LafayetteHill, PA 19444-2531,(610)825-3134, philjberg@ gm ail.com , for Plaintiff/Appellee,PH ILIP JB ER G ; and(c) Plaintiff/Appellee, LAWO FFIC ES OF PH ILIP J. BER G ,555A nd orra G len Court, Suite 12, LafayetteHill, PA 19444-2531, (610) 825-3134,philjberg@ gm ail.com .

2. t is necessaryfor Taitz to seekrelief hereinon anem ergencybasispursuan t to C ircuit R u le27-3. A SchedulingO rderhas been issued in thismatterrequiringT a itz ' s O pening Brief and ExcerptsofR ecordto be fi led and served byD ecem ber 24, 2013.Therefore , thereis less thantwenty-one (21) days fo r thereliefsoughtby Taitz tobe conside red and issuedbefore thepresentD ecem ber 24,2013deadli ne.



51/68

3 Further, Defendant/Appellant, D EFEND O U R FREED OM SFO U N D ATIONS ( D O FF ) (represented by Taitz), has filed a relatedappeal(Liberi, etal. v. Taitz, et al.; Case No. 13-56250). DO FF has fileda M otion inthatappeal requesting various relief, including to bar Berg from representing theBergOffices. The C ourt of A ppeal has issued an Order requiringBergto filea responseto the M otion,including to state whether he seeks to represent the Berg Offices,and to stay briefinguntil further Order. See, Exhibit B hereto.

4 Berghas not, as required, filed anyresponse to DOFFs M otion, andis thus barred from represen ting the BergOffices. The Order alsoprovides thatfailureto res pond to it may result in the waiver ofall claims and arguments in the

appeal by The Law Offices of Philip J B erg. ( Exhibit B Order,pg. 3.)TheC ourt of A ppealsis considering that issue, as w ell as the other requests for reliefsought byDOFF, with the partiesaccordinglyawaiting a furtherOrderon DOFF sMotion.

5 As explained, DOFF s Motionis pending in Case No. 13-56250, w iththeCourt of A ppeals consideringit andnot yet having issued asecond Order on it.Such O rder likely will affect handlingof this appeal. Fo r this additional reason,Taitzis proceeding pursuant to Circuit Rule 27-3 where the Motion in DOFF sappeal is pending, andthe secondOrder on said Motion m ay not be issued untilafter theDecember 24, 2013 deadlinein Taitz 's appeal particu larly w here briefingin DOFF s appeal is stayed Taitz thereforecertifies that to avoid irreparable harmrel ie f is n eeded in lessthan twenty-one (21) days.

6 C om mencing onDecember 3, 2013, Taitz 's counsel has met andconferred v iaemailw ith all other counsel. A ppellees' counsel on December 4,2013 responded toTa i tz' s counsel 's email. The partieshave been unabletoresolve theissues presentedherein. Further, Appellees through their counsel are



52/68

bein g served with Taitz s M otion.7 The relief sought b y T aitz, regarding Berg andrepresenta tion o the

Berg Offices in this appeal, was not available in the D istrict Court. 8 On December 5,2013, Tai tz s counsel in formed the Court o Appeals

M otion Unit (Stephanie, S taff Attorney)o this andTaitz s co ncurrently-fi le dM otions ando the emerg ency basisfor submissio n o them.

Dated: December 6,2013 Is/ - Jeffrey P CunninghamKim Schumannl E qJeffrey P Cunnmgham, E qAttorneys for Derendant anaAppellant , ORLY TA ITZ



53/68

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESDefendant and Appellant, ORLY TAITZ ( Taitz ), respectfully submits this

Emergency Motion for an Order disqualifying Plaintiff and Appellee, PHILIP JBERG ( Berg ), from representing Plaintiff and Appellee, LAW OFFICES OFPHILIP J BERG ( Berg Offices ), due to Berg's suspension of his license topractice law in his home State of Pennsylvania. Taitz also seeks an Order stayingthe briefing schedule in this matter, pending resolution of issues regardingrepresentation of and participation by Berg Offices in this appeal.I. Introduction

Taitz has appealed from the June 18, 2013 Order of the District Court (Hon.Andrew Guilford, Judge) denying her Motion to strike under California Code ofCivil Procedure section 425.16 challenging the First Amended Complaint ofPlaintiffs and Appellees, LISA LIBERI, LISA OSTELLA, GO EXCELGLOBAL, Berg and the Berg Offices (collectively Plaintiffs ).

Berg formerly represented all Plaintiffs. However, on June 19, 2013, Berg'slicense to practice law issued by his home state of Pennsylvania was suspended fortwo years. See, Exhibit A hereto. Berg, thus, cannot represent any other party,including but not limited to the Berg Offices.II. The Court o Appeals in Related Case No 13-56250 Has Granted

Appellant, Defend Our Freedoms Foundations, the Same Relief SoughtHerein by Taitz and Should Do o in This CaseDefendant and Appellant, DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS

( DOFF ), has filed a related appeal (Liberi. et al. v. Taitz, et al.; Case No. 13-56250).Due to Berg's suspension, DOFF filed a Motion in that appeal requesting

various relief, including to bar Berg from representing the Berg Offices. The Court



54/68

ofAppeal issued an Order requiring Berg to file a response to the Motion,including to state whether he seeks to represent the Berg Offices, as well asstaying briefing in that appeal. See, Exhibit B hereto.

Berg has not, as required, filed any response to DOFF's Motion, and is thusbarred from representing the Berg Offices. The Order also provides that failure torespond to it may result in the waiver of all claims and arguments in the appeal byThe Law Offices of Philip J. Berg. ( Exhibit B Order, pg. 3.) The Court ofAppeals is considering that issue, as well as the other requests for relief sought byDOFF, with the parties accordingly awaiting a further Order on DOFF's Motion.

Because Berg has been barred from representing the Berg Offices inDOFF's related appeal, and the same issue is presented herein, Taitz respectfullysubmits that Berg should also be barred from representing the Berg Offices in thisappeal. Taitz also, for the same reasons expressed in DOFF's Motion and asreflected in the Court of Appeals' Exhibit B Order, respectfully submits that theBerg Offices should be barred from participating in this appeal, including to waiveall claims and arguments herein.III As a Matter o Law, Berg Due to His Suspension Cannot Represent the

Berg Offices and That Purported Entity Cannot Represent ItselfThe Berg Offices claims to be an entity of an unspecified type that cannot,

as a matter of law, represent itself. t must be represented herein by licensed legalcounsel.

A corporation must be represented by counsel. In re Highley 459 F.2d 554,555 9th Cir. 1972). An unincorporated association must be represented by counsel.Church o he New Testament v United States 783 F.2d 771, 773 9th Cir. 1986).A partner may not represent his or her own interest in a partnership pro se. Licht vAm. West Airlines 40 F. 3d 1058, 1059 9th Cir. 1994). A sole shareholder may not



55/68

re pre sent a corp oration prose United States v High Country Bro ad Co. 3 F.3d1244, 1245 9th Cir. 1993).

Thus, as found by this Court inits ExhibitB Order, i the Berg Offices isany type o entity as referenced in the above cases, it must berepresentedb ylicensed legal counsel and cannot purport to re present itself pro se. Berg cannotre present the Berg Officesor any otherP laintiff due tohis suspension. (See,

Exhibit A. )IV. he Brie fmg Schedule n T aitz 's Appeal Should B e Stayed, as Has Been

O rdered in DO F F's Appea l. Pending R esolution o Issues RegardingRepresentat ion o the Berg O fficesThe effect o B erg'ssuspension on his abilityto re present the Berg Offices,

as well as regarding representation o it and whether it shouldb e barred fromparticip ating in this appeal, are key issuesh erein that should be decided beforeproceedingwith the parties filing briefs andtheir Excerpts o Record.

This Court hasso recognized in issuingits Order inD OFF's appeal,whichin cludes tostay briefing inthat relate dmatter untilsuch issues are resolved.

Moreover, the filing o th is Motion re sults in a stay being im posed pursuantto Circuit Rule 27-1 1, whichprovides in relevant part: M otions requesting thetypes o relief notedbelow shall stay the schedule or record preparation andbriefing pending the Cou rt 's disposition o the motion: ... (6) appointment orwithdrawal o counsel.

Taitz 's Motionconcerns appointment o counsel for the BergO ffices inthat seeksto resolve who,i any counsel, will represent it intheappeal. t alsoconcerns withdrawal o counsel regarding the BergOfficesw ith regardtoB erg 's inability to represent the Berg Offices.ll



56/68

Thus under Circuit Rule 27-11 the filing of this Motion operates to stay thebriefing schedule herein.V Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein Taitz respectfully submits that an Ordershould issue disqualifying erg from representing the erg Offices and stayingthe briefing schedule in this appeal pending resolution of these issues.

Dated: December 6 2013Is/ - Jeffrey P. Cunningham

By: __________________________Kim c h u m a n n ~ Esq.Jeffrey P. CunmnEham E q.Attorneys for Defendant anaAppellant ORLY T AITZ



57/68

DECLARATION OF JE.FFREYP CUNNINGHAMtESJttSUPPORTINGMOTION BY PLAINTIFF AND APPELLAN , 0 Y TAITZI Jeffrey P. Cunningham, declare as follows:1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in all courts of the State

of California and the United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit, and am a Partnerin the law offices of Schumann Rosenberg, LLP, counsel for Defendant andAppellant, ORLY TAITZ ( Taitz ). I make this declaration based on my personalknowledge of the facts stated herein. I gained my knowledge of those facts byvirtue ofmy participation in the events described herein, my preparation or reviewof the documents described herein, or some combination of the foregoing asidentified herein. If called to testify to the facts stated herein, I could and would doso competently and truthfully.

2. This declaration is submitted in support of Taitz's Motion for anOrder disqualifying Plaintiff and Appellee, PHILIP J. BERG ( Berg ), fromrepresenting Plaintiff and Appellee, LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG ( BergOffices ), due to Berg's suspension of his license to practice law in his home Stateof Pennsylvania. Taitz also seeks an Order staying the briefing schedule in thismatter, pending resolution of issues regarding representation of and participationby Berg Offices in this appeal.

3. I have read and am familiar with the pleadings and orders filed inBerg's disciplinary matter. A true and correct copy of the Order of the SupremeCourt ofPennsylvania in Office ofDisciplinary Counsel v. Berg is attached heretoas Exhibit A and is incorporated herein by this reference as though fully setforth.

4. t is necessary for Taitz to seek relief herein on an emergency basispursuant to Circuit Rule 27-3. A Scheduling Order has been issued in this matterrequiring Taitz's Opening Brief and Excerpts ofRecord to be filed and served by

- 8-



58/68

December 24, 2013. Therefore, there is less than twenty-one (21) days for therelief sought by Taitz to be considered and issued before the present December 24,2013 deadline.

5 Further, Defendant/Appellant, DEFEND OUR FREEDOMSFOUNDATIONS ( DOFF ) (represented by Taitz), has filed a related appeal(Liberi, et al. v Taitz, et al.; Case No. 13-56250). DOFF has filed a Motion in thatappeal requesting various relief, including to bar Berg from representing the BergOffices. The Court ofAppeals has issued an Order requiring Berg to file aresponse to the Motion, including to state whether he seeks to represent the BergOffices, and to st y briefing until further Order. I have read and am familiar withDOFF's Motion, the Opposition and Reply regarding it, and the Order on same. Atrue and correct copy of that Order is attached hereto as Exhibit B and isincorporated herein y this reference as though fully set forth.

6 Berg has not, as required, filed any response to DOFF's Motion, andis thus barred from representing the Berg Offices. The Order also provides thatfailure to respond to it may result in the waiver of all claims and arguments in the

appeal y The Law Offices of Philip J Berg. ( Exhibit B Order, pg. 3.) TheCourt of Appeals is considering that issue, as well as the other requests for reliefsought y DOFF, with the parties accordingly awaiting a further Order on DOFF'sMotion.

7 As explained, DOFF's Motion is pending in Case No. 13-56250, withthe Court ofAppeals considering it and not yet having issued a second Order on it.Such Order likely will affect handling of this appeal. For this additional reason,Taitz is proceeding pursuant to Circuit Rule 27-3 where the Motion in DOFF'sappeal is pending, and the second Order on said Motion may not be issued untilafter the December 24, 2013 deadline in Taitz 's appeal particularly where briefing



59/68

in DOFF s appeal is stayed Taitz therefore certifies that toavoid irrep arable harmrelief isneede d in less than twenty-one (21) days.

8 Com mencing on Dece m ber 3, 2013, Taitz s counsel has met andconferredvia e mail w ith all other couns el. Appellees counsel on December4,2013 responded to T ai tz s counsel s email. The parties have been unable toresolve the issues presented herein. Further, Appellees throughtheir counsel arebeing served with T a i tz s M otion.

9 The rel ief soughtby Ta itz, regarding Bergand r epresentation of theBergOffic es in this appeal, was not available inthe D istrictCour t.

10 O n Decem ber 5, 2013, Taitz s cou nsel informed the CourtofAppealsM otion U nit (Stephanie, Sta ff Attorney)of this and Taitz s conc urrently-filedM otions and of the emergency basis forsubm issionof them.

hereby decla re under penalty of perjury under thelaws of the State ofCalifornia and ofthe United States ofAmerica that the above is trueand c orrect.Executed on D ecember 6, 2013, in Costa Mesa , California.

1

sf - Jeffrey P. CunninghamBy: _____________________Jeffrey P Cunningham, Esq.Declarant



60/68

EXHIBIT A



61/68

Case 8:11-cv-00485-AG-AJW Document 636-1 Filed 06/21113 Page 1 of 17 Page ID:16000

JN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL. No. 1928 Disciplinary Docket No 3PetitionerNo. 208 DB 2010vAttorney Registration No. 9867

PHILIP J BERG. Respondent (Montgomery County)

O R E R

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 19 day of June, 2013, upon consideration of the Report andRecommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated March 8. 2013. respondent'sObjections and Exceptions and response thereto. the request for oral argument isdenied and it is hereby

ORDERED that Philip J Berg is suspended from the Bar of this Commonwealthfor a period of two years and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217.Pa.R.D.E.

t is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Discipllnal)' Boardpursuant to Rule 208(g). Pa.R.D.E.

ATNe Copy PaiTJCiil NIColaAs Of 1 9 ~ 0 1 3



62/68

EXHIBIT B



63/68

Case: 1 3 5 625 0 10 /28 /2013 ID 8839652 DktEntry : 11

U N IT E D STATESC OU R T O FA PPE A L SFORT H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

L ISA LIBERI; e t al., No.13-56250

P age :1 of3FILEOCT2820 13

MOLLY C . DWYER CLERKU S CO UR TO F A P PE ALS

Pla intiffs - Appellees,v.

D .C .No8 :11-cv-00485-A G -A JW CentralDistrict of California,Santa Ana

O R L Y TA ITZ, AKADr. O rlyTaitz; etal.,D efendants,

andD E FE N D OURFR E E D O M SFO U N D A T IO N S,IN C.,

D efendant - A ppellant.

ORDER

The courthas receiveda ppellan t's urgen t m otion fordeclaratory andinjunctive relief, filed A ugust 6, 2013 (the Motion ), the oppositionof appellees

L is aL iberi, LisaM. Ostella, and G o Excel Global, filedA ugust 6 2013 (theO pposition ), and appel lant 'sr eply insupportof the M otion.

The court construesthe O pposition, inpart, asa m otionof Ste phen H.

M arcus, Esq., andR andy A. Berg, Esq., to w ith draw as retained counsel forappellees PhilipJ. B ergandTheL awO fficesof PhilipJ. Berg. Soconstrued, the

jp /M OA TT



64/68

Case: 13 56250 10/2 8/2 013 ID: 8839652 DktEntry : 11 Page: 2 of 3

m otionis gra nted. T he C lerk shall am end the docketto refle

2013-12-06 - LIBERI v TAITZ CDCA - Emergency Motion - 13-56253 Emergency Motion(1)

Documents

Transcript of 2013-12-06 - LIBERI v TAITZ CDCA - Emergency Motion - 13-56253 Emergency Motion(1)