Case Name: Traditions Psychology Group, Inc. d/b/a Traditions Behavioral Health v. Mavericks Capital, LLC, et al.
Case No.: 2014-1-CV-273320
Defendants/Cross-Complainants Mavericks Capital LLC and Mavericks Capital Securities LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication
This action arises from a dispute over a contract to provide services (“Broker Agreement”) for plaintiff/cross-defendant Traditions Psychology Group, Inc. d.b.a. Traditions Behavioral Health (“TBH”) during a one-year period. In the complaint filed November 17, 2014, TBH asserts a declaratory relief claim against defendants/cross-complainants Mavericks Capital LLC (“Mavericks”) and Mavericks Capital Securities LLC (“MCS”) (collectively, “Mavericks Entities”). TBH asserts that it is not required to pay a commission under the Broker Agreement or a subsequent assignment contract (“Assignment Agreement”) (collectively, “the Contracts”) because after it received an offer from a potential buyer (“Buyer A”), it did not execute a sale.
In the cross-complaint and in the first amended cross-complaint (“FAXC”), Mavericks Entities asserted causes of action against TBH and its president cross-defendant Gary A. Hayes, Ph.D. (“Hayes”) (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”) for: (1) promissory fraud; (2) breach of written contract; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) money owing for services rendered (quantum meruit). After Cross-Defendants filed a demurrer to the cross-complaint, Mavericks Entities filed a FAXC. Thereafter, Cross-Defendants demurred to each claim in the FAXC for failure to state a claim. In an order filed on August 26, 2015, this court (Hon. Lucas) sustained the demurrer with leave to amend.
On September 10, 2015, Mavericks Entities filed a second amended cross-complaint (“SAXC”), asserting claims against Cross-Defendants for: (1) breach of written contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) money owing for services rendered (quantum meruit); (4) reformation of written contract; and (5) deceit.
On October 15, 2015, Cross-Defendants filed a demurrer to each cause of action in the SAXC. On December 23, 2015, this court (Hon. Lucas) sustained the Cross-Defendants’ demurrer to the first, second, third, and fifth causes of action of the SAXC without leave to amend and sustained the Cross-Defendants’ demurrer to the fourth cause of action (reformation) with leave to amend.
On January 19, 2016, the Mavericks Entities filed a third amended cross-complaint (“TAXC”) against TBH only asserting a single cause of action for reformation. On February 23, 2016, Cross-Defendants filed a demurrer to the TAXC. On April 7, 2016, the court (Hon. McGowen) overruled cross-defendant TBH’s demurrer to the TAXC.
On May 24, 2016, the court (Hon. McGowen) granted the Mavericks Entities leave to file a fourth amended cross-complaint (“4AXC”) against cross-defendant TBH which was filed the same day. The 4AXC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract and (2) reformation.
On June 22, 2016, cross-defendant TBH filed its answer to the 4AXC.
On May 18, 2017, TBH filed a motion for summary judgment/adjudication of the 4AXC. On August 3, 2017, the court (Hon. Elfving) denied TBH’s motion for summary judgment/adjudication.
On October 19, 2017, the Mavericks Entities filed a Roe amendment to the 4AXC substituting Traditions Psychological Assessment and Treatment Group, Inc. (“TPATG”) for a Roe cross-defendant.
On November 16, 2017, the Mavericks Entities filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to TBH’s complaint for declaratory relief.
Also on November 16, 2017, TBH filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint.
On December 12, 2017, the court (Hon. Kirwan) granted the Mavericks Entities’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to TBH’s complaint with leave to amend. The court also granted TBH’s motion for leave to amend its complaint to add two causes of action for rescission.
On December 22, 2017, TBH filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”). The FAC alleges on or about December 5, 2013, TBH entered into the Broker Agreement with Woodside Capital Partners International LLC (“Woodside Capital) whereby TBH engaged Woodside Capital to broker a sale of TBH to a qualified buyer in exchange for a commission if a sale or other acquisition of TBH closed. (FAC, ¶11.) The Broker Agreement also included a break-up fee provision requiring TBH to pay Woodside Capital the transaction fees Woodside Capital would have been paid in the event that TBH receives a bona fide offer which included a valuation for TBH of $30 million or greater and TBH decides to terminate or abandon the transaction. (FAC, ¶12.)
In or around June 2014, Woodside Capital underwent a reorganization or spin-off which resulted in Mavericks being assigned Woodside Capital’s rights and obligations under the Broker Agreement. (FAC, ¶14.) The assignment was reduced to writing via the Assignment Agreement. (Id.)
Prior to the effective date of the Assignment Agreement, TBH began receiving non-binding letters of intent from private equity firms. (FAC, ¶19.) By late August 2014, TBH received several letters of intent with an enterprise value above $30 million, though only one non-binding letter from The Riverside Company (“Riverside”) included a cash at close amount above $30 million. (FAC, ¶20.) The Mavericks Entities claim a right to commission under the break-up fee provision. (FAC, ¶21.)
On August 28, 2014, Riverside sent TBH a non-binding letter of intent which TBH signed. (FAC, ¶21.) Unable to agree on a price, Riverside terminated and withdrew from its non-binding letter of intent on October 6, 2014. (FAC, ¶22.) TBH did not abandon or terminate negotiations with Riverside. (FAC, ¶22.) TBH and Riverside did not reach a binding agreement for the purchase of TBH. (FAC, ¶23.) TBH was not sold to Riverside or any other party. (Id.) No consideration of any kind was received by TBH from Riverside or any other party. (Id.) Defendants Mavericks Entities claim they are owed a commission by TBH in the amount of $2.88 million pursuant to the break-up fee provision of the Broker Agreement. (Id.)
TBH’s FAC now asserts causes of action for:
(1) Declaratory Relief
(2) Rescission on Grounds of Fraud
(3) Rescission on Grounds of Mutual Mistake
On January 18, 2018, the Mavericks Entities filed an answer to TBH’s FAC and also filed the motion now before the court, a motion for summary judgment of TBH’s FAC.
I. Plaintiff TBH’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.
In opposition, plaintiff TBH requests judicial notice of various court records from this action. Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d) states that the court may take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of any court of this state.” This section of the statute has been interpreted to mean that the trial court may take judicial notice of the existence of the court’s own records. Evidence Code section 452 and 453 permit the trial court to “take judicial notice of the existence of judicial opinions and court documents, along with the truth of the results reached—in the documents such as orders, statements of decision, and judgments—but [the court] cannot take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in decisions or court files, including pleadings, affidavits, testimony, or statements of fact.” (People v. Woodell (1998) 17 Cal.4th 448, 455.) Accordingly, plaintiff TBH’s request for judicial notice in support of opposition to defendants’/cross-complainants’ motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication is GRANTED, but only insofar as the court takes judicial notice of the existence of the documents, not necessarily the truth of any matters asserted therein.
II. Defendant Mavericks Entities’ motion for summary adjudication of the first cause of action for declaratory relief is GRANTED.
In ruling on the Mavericks Entities’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the first cause of action in plaintiff TBH’s complaint for declaratory relief, this court previously granted the motion on the basis that TBH could obtain the same affirmative relief by successfully defending against the Mavericks Entities’ cross-claim for breach of contract, the Broker Agreement.
The court in Gafcon, Inc. v. Ponsor & Associates (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1403 wrote, “declaratory relief operates prospectively, and not merely for the redress of past wrongs. It serves to set controversies at rest before they lead to repudiation of obligations, invasion of rights or commission of wrongs; in short, the remedy is to be used in the interests of preventive justice, to declare rights rather than execute them.” Defendant Mavericks Entities contends a breach of the Broker Agreement is at issue in its 4AXC. Hence, where there is an accrued cause of action for an actual breach of contract or other wrongful act, declaratory relief may be denied.” (5 Witkin, California Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Pleading, §823, p. 279.) Since the 4AXC already seeks a determination of whether TBH is required to pay the Mavericks Entities pursuant to the Broker Agreement, defendants Mavericks Entities argued declaratory relief is unnecessary.
It is statutorily recognized that declaratory relief is within the discretion of the trial court. “The court may refuse to exercise the power granted by this chapter in any case where its declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time under all the circumstances.” (Code Civ. Proc. §1061.)
Plaintiff TBH argued, in opposition to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, that declaratory relief is nevertheless proper where there is a need for judicial guidance on the parties’ future conduct. (See Osseous Technologies of America, Inc. v. DiscoveryOrtho Partners LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 357, 377 (Osseous).) Osseous, however, suggests that there must be allegations of “continuing contractual relationships and future consequences for the conduct of the relationship that depended on the court’s interpretation of the contracts at issue.” (Osseous, supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 371.) However, no such allegations were found in plaintiff TBH’s complaint.
In the FAC, plaintiff TBH now includes the following allegation: “If Plaintiff does not prevail on its causes of action for rescission (set forth below), the potentially continuing contractual relationship between the parties and future consequences for the conduct of that relationship depend on the Court’s interpretation of the Broker Agreement and Assignment Agreement so a declaration of future rights and responsibilities is necessary. The two-year term of the “Tail Period” of the Broker Agreement has expired. In the event that Traditions is sold in the future, on information and belief, Defendants will assert that they are entitled to a commission or fee under the Broker Agreement and Assignment Agreement based on a sale or other acquisition of Traditions. Consequently, Traditions requests a judicial determination that if Traditions consummates a sale at any time in the future, no commission, fee or other amount is due to Defendants as a result of the Broker Agreement and/or the Assignment Agreement or anything else. Accordingly, a judicial determination of the parties’ rights is necessary to prevent future disputes arising from the Broker Agreement and Assignment Agreement.” (FAC, ¶35.)
Mavericks Entities contend TBH’s declaratory relief cause of action is not saved by this new allegation. The Mavericks Entities proffer evidence conceding they cannot recover any fee for any future sale of TBH that has not yet taken place. Neither [of the Mavericks Entities] assert the right to any Break-UP Fee other than the one triggered by the Riverside Letter of Intent. The Mavericks Entities indicate they have filed a “Waiver and Judicial Admission” which states, among other things, that they “do hereby waive and irrevocably disavow any right to a Transaction Fee under the Agreement for any Transaction that was not consummated on or before December 4, 2016.” The Mavericks Entities [do not] “assert[] they are entitled to a commission or fee under the [Broker Agreement] based on a sale of TBH that might take place in the future.”
“The ‘actual controversy’ language in Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 encompasses a probable future controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties.” (County of San Diego v. State of California (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580, 606.) “For a probable future controversy to constitute an ‘actual controversy,’ however, the probable future controversy must be ripe. [Citations.] A ‘controversy is “ripe” when it has reached, but has not passed, the point that the facts have sufficiently congealed to permit an intelligent and useful decision to be made.’ [Citation.] [¶] Whether a claim presents an ‘actual controversy’ within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 is a question of law that we review de novo.” (Ibid.)
In essence, Mavericks Entities is arguing that TBH’s new allegation does not amount to an actual controversy or probable future controversy because the Mavericks Entities have disavowed any right to a commission or fee based on a future sale of TBH. TBH argues in opposition that the Mavericks Entities’ motion for summary adjudication of this first cause of action is misguided because a “continuing contractual relationship” is not a necessary element to a claim for declaratory relief. While not artfully stated, the court understands Mavericks Entities to be attacking the element of an actual or probable future controversy. TBH contends the parties’ future rights and obligations remain at issue based upon Mavericks Entities conduct in continuing to seek discovery which includes TBH’s communication with potential buyers. The court does not find this to raise a triable issue of material fact in view of the Mavericks Entities express disavowal of any claim for a commission or fee based on a future sale and express limitation to seeking a Break-Up Fee purportedly triggered by the Riverside Letter of Intent.
Accordingly, defendant Mavericks Entities alternative motion for summary adjudication of the first cause of action in plaintiff TBH’s FAC for declaratory relief is GRANTED.
III. Defendant Mavericks Entities’ motion for summary adjudication of the second cause of action for rescission on grounds of fraud is GRANTED.
“Rescission is not a cause of action; it is a remedy.” (Nakash v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 59, 70.) “The traditional equitable action to have the rescission of a contract adjudged was recognized in former Civil Code 3406. [However,] the equitable action was abolished in 1961, and the remedy is now a legal action for restitution based on a completed unilateral rescission.” (4 Witkin, California Procedure (4th ed. 1997) §502, p. 590 – 591.) “The following need to be alleged in an action for restitution after completed unilateral rescission: (1) the contract or other contractual instrument; (2) the grounds for rescission; (3) if the ground is breach of contract, plaintiff’s own performance.” (4 Witkin, California Procedure (4th ed. 1997) §503, p. 591; see also Runyan v. Pacific Air Industries, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 304.)
Civil Code section 1689, subdivision (b) enumerates the various grounds for rescission. One such ground is “[i]f the consent of the party rescinding, or of any party jointly contracting with him, was given by mistake, or obtained through duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence, exercised by or with the connivance of the party as to whom he rescinds, or of any other party to the contract jointly interested with such party.” In its second cause of action, plaintiff TBH alleges fraud as the basis for rescission. Specifically, plaintiff TBH alleges, in relevant part, “…Woodside Capital and Defendants understood the break-up fee provision of the Broker Agreement as capable of being triggered by a non-binding letter of intent. Plaintiff also learned that Woodside Capital and Defendants understood the cash at close amount required by the break-up fee provision to include not only actual cash paid at closing, but also any amounts held in escrow after closing and any notes payable after closing. [¶] Woodside Capital and Defendants intentionally concealed their secret understanding of the break-up fee provision from Plaintiff during negotiations of the Broker Agreement and at the time the Broker Agreement and Assignment Agreement were entered into.” (FAC, ¶¶40 – 41.)
“ ‘The elements of fraud … are (a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or “scienter”); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.’ ” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 377, 909 P.2d 981.) “An action for promissory fraud may lie where a defendant fraudulently induces the plaintiff to enter into a contract.” (Ibid.)
(Geraghty v. Shalizi (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 593, 597.)
“[T]he elements of an action for fraud and deceit based on concealment are: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact, (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff, (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact, and (5) as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact, the plaintiff must have sustained damage.” (Marketing West, Inc. v. Sanyo Fisher (USA) Corp. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 603, 612 – 613.)
Mavericks Entities argues and proffers evidence that it did not conceal its understanding that the break-up fee provision could be triggered by a non-binding letter of intent. Further, Mavericks Entities proffers evidence that Hayes knew of Mavericks Entities’ understanding because the parties discussed the issue at length. TBH understood that any offer to purchase TBH would first come in the form of a Letter of Intent or equivalent, which upon acceptance would kick off a period of final due diligence, and only after due diligence was completed would TBH and the buyer sign a binding purchase and sale agreement at closing. Specifically, “Dr. Hayes indicated to me at the time of negotiating the [Broker Agreement] that he understood the Break-Up Fee provision just the same way I did, namely: if we produced a potential buyer who issued TBH a Letter of Intent to pay $30 million or greater cash upon close, then TBH would either pursue that transaction or pay Woodside a Break-Up Fee.” In short, Mavericks Entities contend they did not conceal their understanding of the break-up fee provision or their understanding of the break-up fee provision was known to TBH.
However, TBH’s evidence conflicts with the evidence proffered by Mavericks Entities. Namely, Hayes avers, “Prior to the time Dr. Hayes signed the [Broker] Agreement, no one at Woodside Capital ever advised him or TBH that Woodside Capital’s intent was for a non-binding letter of intent to qualify as a ‘bona fide’ offer under the [Broker] Agreement.” TBH’s evidence is that it understood the break-up fee provision to require a binding purchase offer.
Mavericks Entities also points to the language of the break-up fee provision itself to suggest that its plain language precludes any hidden meaning. Furthermore, Mavericks Entities proffers evidence that TBH’s owner, Hayes, read the entire Broker Agreement and understood the break-up fee provision before signing. TBH consulted with its attorney and its attorney reviewed the language of the break-up provision before TBH signed the Broker Agreement. This evidence is proffered by Mavericks Entities to argue that any reliance on an undisclosed meaning by TBH was unjustified. However, this evidence is not enough for Mavericks Entities to establish, as a matter of law, that TBH’s reliance is unjustified. “‘Except in the rare case where the undisputed facts leave no room for a reasonable difference of opinion, the question of whether a plaintiff’s reliance is reasonable is a question of fact.’” (Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1239.) A question of fact exists particularly in view of TBH’s evidence that Hayes and TBH are not experts in the private equity or investment banking industry and relied on Woodside Capital and Mavericks Entities would act in their best interest. TBH retained Mavericks Entities for the express purpose of finding a qualified buyer and helping TBH navigate an industry in which it had no familiarity.
On the element of intent, Mavericks Entities avers it did not have any intent of inducing TBH to agree to a break-up fee provision it did not understand. “An intent to deceive is not an essential element of the cause of action, … the required intent is an intent to induce action.” (Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1062.) “Since direct proof of fraudulent intent is often impossible, the intent may be established by inference from acts of the parties.” (Santoro v. Carbone (1972) 22 Cal.App.3d 721, 727; see also Locke v. Warner Bros. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 354, 368—“Fraudulent intent must often be established by circumstantial evidence.”)
In the case of promissory fraud, “fraudulent intent has been inferred from such circumstances as defendant’s insolvency, his hasty repudiation of the promise, his failure even to attempt performance, or his continued assurances after it was clear he would not perform.” (Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 18, 30.) “Where fraud is charged, evidence of other frauds or fraudulent representations of like character, committed by the same parties at or near the same time is admissible to prove intent.” (Atkins Corp. v. Tourny (1936) 6 Cal.2d 206, 215.)
In opposition, TBH contends an intent to induce reliance can be inferred from the fact that the break-up fee provision requires a “bona-fide offer” and does not specify whether a letter of intent must be binding and TBH’s lack of familiarity with the investment banking industry. In other words, TBH contends the language of the break-up free contains ambiguity which supports both parties’ different understandings and together with the fact that TBH was unfamiliar with the investment banking industry, the court should reach the inference that Mavericks Entities took advantage of this situation to intentionally conceal its own understanding rather than disclose to TBH its understanding of how the break-up fee provision applies in order to induce TBH into entering into the Broker Agreement.
The court does not find TBH’s circumstantial evidence sufficient to create an inference of fraudulent intent by Mavericks Entities to conceal its understanding of the break-up fee provision. It is not logical or reasonable to infer that Mavericks Entities held some fraudulent intent because a contractual provision is ambiguous and capable of two different interpretations nor is it logical or reasonable to infer that Mavericks Entities intended to conceal its own understanding of a contractual provision because TBH is unfamiliar with the industry that the Mavericks Entities practice. It is entirely speculative for TBH to suggest that Mavericks Entities held some fraudulent intent based on the evidentiary circumstances presented. (See Weil & Brown, et al., CAL. PRAC. GUIDE: CIV. PRO. BEFORE TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2017) ¶10:203.1, p. 10-82 citing Doe v. Salesian Soc. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 474, 481.)
TBH also argues there is circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent based on the timing of an initial August 1, 2014 Riverside Letter of Intent’s arrival the day after Hayes provided notice of termination and defendants’ attempt to force TBH to sign the final Riverside Letter of Intent with the threat of the break-up fee. The underlying evidence does not support TBH’s assertions. Moreover, it does not follow that the Mavericks Entities’ attempt to enforce its understanding of the break-up fee provision amounts to a fraudulent intent to induce.
Thus, TBH has not produced any admissible evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, which would present a triable issue of material fact with regard to the Mavericks Entities’ intent to induce. Accordingly, defendant Mavericks Entities’ alternative motion for summary adjudication of the second cause of action in plaintiff TBH’s FAC for rescission on grounds of fraud is GRANTED.
IV. Defendant Mavericks Entities’ motion for summary adjudication of the third cause of action for rescission on grounds of mutual mistake is GRANTED.
In the third cause of action, TBH seeks rescission based upon a mutual mistake. Specifically, the FAC alleges, in relevant part, “Woodside Capital and Defendants understood the break-up fee provision of the Broker Agreement as capable of being triggered by a non-binding letter of intent. … In contrast, Plaintiff understood that the break-up fee provision was triggered only if Plaintiff terminated an actual transaction after receiving a bona fide offer, meaning a binding offer Plaintiff could accept to bind the offeror.” (FAC, ¶¶54 – 55.)
In moving for summary adjudication of the third cause of action, Mavericks Entities argue rescission is not available based on the allegations. Mavericks Entities cites Hedging Concepts, Inc. v. First Alliance Mortgage Co. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1421 (Hedging) where the court explained:
The grounds for rescission are stated in Civil Code section 1689. One such ground exists when consent to a contract is given by “mistake.” The term “mistake” in Civil Code section 1689, however, is a legal term with a legal meaning.
The type of “mistake” that will support rescission is defined in Civil Code section 1577 (“mistake of fact”) and Civil Code section 1578 (“mistake of law”). Clearly, there was no mistake of objective existing fact involved here, and Civil Code section 1577 therefore does not apply. The supposed mistake was instead Rosenfeld’s subjective misinterpretation of the contract. This is at most a mistake of law. [Footnote.]
However, Rosenfeld’s misinterpretation of the contract does not fit the definition of mistake of law supporting rescission. A mistake of law as defined by Civil Code section 1578 exists only when 1) all parties think they know and understand the law but all are mistaken in the same way, or 2) when one side misunderstands the law at the time of contract and the other side knows it, but does not rectify that misunderstanding. Neither of these two possibilities occurred on the facts found by the trial court. Clearly, each side here placed a different interpretation on the contract, hence all parties did not make the same mistake.
Just as in Hedging, TBH has alleged that each side has placed a different interpretation on the break-up fee provision so there is no mutual mistake of law. In opposition, TBH concedes its third cause of action “would more neatly map onto unilateral mistake of law, rather than mutual mistake. TBH can amend its First Amended Complaint to so reflect.”
Even assuming TBH properly pleaded rescission based on its own unilateral mistake of law, Mavericks Entities contends the cause of action fails because Mavericks Entities did not know TBH misunderstood the break-up fee provision at the time the parties entered into the Broker Agreement and thereby had no obligation to rectify a misunderstanding. Mavericks Entities’ evidence is that TBH (Hayes) and Mavericks Entities (Karan) understood the break-up fee provision in the same way. Although there is evidence from TBH that it held a different understanding of the break-up fee provision, rescission based on a unilateral mistake of law would require Mavericks Entities to know of TBH’s different understanding (misunderstanding) at the time of contracting in order to rectify that misunderstanding.
Mavericks Entities proffers evidence that the first time TBH ever asserted that the Riverside LOI was not a “bona fide offer in the form of a Letter of Intent” was in an email from Hayes dated August 7, 2014. In the email, Hayes wrote:
“Pursuant to our recent exchange to make it clear, I don’t think that a non-binding letter of intent from Riverside is an offer at all, let alone bona fide, since I could not accept it to wind up with a binding contract that would obligate Riverside to perform. We should all be on the same page about that, because there isn’t much doubt about it.”
TBH disputes this was the first time it had asserted its understanding that the Riverside LOI was not a “bona fide offer.” TBH appears to be basing its argument on the prefatory statement, “Pursuant to our recent exchange to make it clear…” In this court’s view, this language does not present a triable issue as to whether TBH made its unilateral mistake/misunderstanding of the break-up fee provision known to the Mavericks Entities at the time of contracting. Even if liberally construed, any “recent exchange” relates to the August 7, 2014 email date, not the time the parties entered into the Broker Agreement which, by TBH’s own allegation, occurred on or about December 5, 2013. (See FAC, ¶11.) TBH does not dispute that the first time Hayes informed Karan that the Riverside LOI was not a bona fide offer was shortly after Mr. Karan made it clear Defendants believed the LOI triggered the break-up fee on or about August 7, 2014. In order for a unilateral mistake of law to support a claim for rescission, Mavericks Entities had to know of TBH’s unilateral mistake/ misunderstanding at the time of contracting. TBH has not submitted any evidence to demonstrate (or create a triable issue) that Mavericks Entities knew of TBH’s unilateral mistake/ misunderstanding at the time of contracting.
Accordingly, defendant Mavericks Entities’ alternative motion for summary adjudication of the third cause of action in plaintiff TBH’s FAC for rescission on grounds of mutual mistake is GRANTED. Consequently, defendant Mavericks Entities’ motion for summary judgment of plaintiff TBH’s FAC is GRANTED.
To the extent the court relied on evidence submitted by the Mavericks Entities, plaintiff TBH’s objections to evidence in support of plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication is OVERRULED. The court declines to rule on any objections to evidence that the court did not rely on in making its ruling. “In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion. Objections to evidence that are not ruled on for purposes of the motion shall be preserved for appellate review.” (Code Civ. Proc., §437c, subd. (q).)
Link to this page
How did it the jury rule in this case?
Thanks in advance
Oh..THANK YOU…WHAT A FIND…I ACCIDENTALLY CAME ACROSS YOU TAKING YOUR TIME AND FINDING THIS IS A MATTER OF ENOUGH IMPORTANCE FOR YOU TO DO IT….WHAT YOUVE REALLY ACCOMPLISHED IS OF A WORLDWIDE EXAMPLE THAT IS. GOING TO HELP SO MANY…ALL THOSE MILLIONS THAT ARE NOT WHAT ALL THE MONEY IS GOING TO THAT IS STOLEN FROM TAXES..GRANTS EVEN PARENT OF DEAD CHILDREN….IT GOES DISTURBING FURTHER WHICH IS THE INPACT PN THE ECONOMY. AND BILLIONS THAT ARE BEING GIVEN TO HELP FOR SOLE PURPOSES OF HEALTHCARE…ASPRIN EVERYTHING….IM ADDING YOUR SPECIAL FIND TO THE..FBI…ABOUT TRANSICISIONS PSCHY AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE THAT HAS BEEN PAID TO DESTROY….EVERYONES LIFE AND FORCING US TO LIISTEN TO THEIR DECEIT AND REFUSING TO TAKE PSYCHOTIC MED…..TO MAKE THE DIR OF OUR C OUNTY WHO WENR TO YOUR COUNTY TO GET THEM TO DO WHAT A REAL DR W WOULD NEVER DO TO ANY PATIENT….BUT VENTURA COUNTY GOT 32 OF THOSE ANIMALS AND PAID THEM OVER $357.000.00 + INCENTIVES THAT YOU WOULDNT EVEN KNOW EXISTED…ONE WAS PAID BONUS QUARTERLY BASED ON THE VOLUME OF HUMAN LIFE THEY COULD GET PASSED HIS SYSTEM AND THAT WAS TOP FOR SPECIAL SERVISES AND USED THE FALSE BELIEF THAT WERE NOW USING TO GET PAID AFTER THEYVE ALREADY BEEN CONVICTED MANY TIMES OF FED FRAUD AND GOV THIS IS JUST THE COUNTY DIR NEWEST SCHEME…AND IT WAS OVER A LONG TIME AGO AND I HAVE ALONE ENOUGH OF THEIR OWN DOCUMENTS AND RECORDED CALLS…TO GET THEM OUT AND AWAY FROM THE REST OF SOCIETY….THIS IS IS MORE PROOF OF HOW THEIR NOTHING BUT FRAUD….STUPID DECEITFUL DISHONEST EVIL WHO DO IT FOR MONEY ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ONES WHO ABUSE US MILLIONS. FOR FREE JUST BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT TOO…..ITS VERY SIMPLE FOR ME AND THE BAU SPECIAL UNIT OF FBI WHO IS PROCUTE THEM ALL FOR US….WILL GET SOME REAL LIVE TRAINING BY WATCHING THESE ANIMALS AND HOW HARD AND LEGENTS THEY WILL GO….FOR ONE THING….THE TRUTH….THATS THE ONLY THING THEY ARE FEARD OF….THATS IT…I KNOW MORE THAN THE FBI AND THE 30 SERIAL PROFILER FOR THE BAU PROFILING SPECIAL UNITS…IN BOOK…DANGERIOUS PERSONALITIES…I CAME UPON THIS BY TOTALLY AGAINST WHAT I WANTED WAS PEACE FOR ONE NIGHT FROM ALL I DONT WANT TO KNOW AND GETTING IN ORDER TO THEM SO IT COULD BE OVER FOR ANYONE AFTER US WHICH ARE THE GENERATION OF ABUSE MILLIONS THAT MANAGED AND TALKED BUT NOBIDY LISTENED LEAVING US TO DEAL WITH WHAT SICK LIKE TO DO TO INOCCENT AND IT INVOLVES US AT EVERY LEVEL INCLUDING TRAFFICKING VICTOMS..ABDUCTIONS…AND ABUSE THAT NOONE COULD REALIZE BUT …NOW THEIR GOING TO LISTEN…..AND WE KNOW THAT IT CAN NEVER GO AWAY…IT DOESNT WORK THAT WAY..TBH HAS AGREED TO TAKE MONEY NOWING IS WAS A DEAL TO TAKE OUR LIVES AND GIVE US MED THAT WOULD DO IT AND THEY HAVE….RIGHT HERE THE MEDS THAT THEVE CONVINCED TO SO MANY THEY ..HAD TO TAKE IN ORDER NOT TO TAKE THEIR OWN…
THEY DID IT AND THAT WAS AFTER THEY HAVE TAKING OVER $650.000.000.00 IN ONE YEAR AND BRAGG WHAT A GOOD JOB THEVE DONE HELPING US ALL IN THE THAT SYSTEM OF CARE BULLSHIT AND ALL THE LAWS MAKING THEM RESPONSIPLE WERE VOID SO THEY COULD DO IT BETTER…FOR US…WELL THIS ARTICLE IS GOING TO HELP THOSE FAMILYS WHO TRIED TO GET JUSTICE IN OUR COUNTY OF 850.00 TOTAL WHILE IN THAT SPECIAL CARE OF THE SPECIAL ANIMALS WHO KILLED THEIR CHILDREN KNOWING IN AN EMERGENCY CRISIS CENTER THEY CAME AND NEEDED HELP AND….THEIR DEFENCE IN THESE…MTHEIR NOT RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE THEY WERNT WATCHING WHEN THEY STEPPED OUT….SO THEY HAD NO IDEA ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN AND THEY WERE NOT A PATIENT IF THEY WEREN’T IN SIGHT…….I JUST SAY..
TO HELP MY FRIENDS WHEN ADVERSE SITUATIONS CAUSE THEM NEGATIVE……PEOPLE DONT FORGET THINGS THEY DONT LIKE….AND PEOPLE DO NOT STOP WHAT THEY LIKE T O DO……SOMETHING OR SOMEONE HAS TO STOP THEM…SKIER BROKEN LEG CANT SKI….SALESMAN DISABLED CANT SELL ANYMORE…THEY DIE…..OR LIKE SERIAL KILLERS NEVER STOP ONLY GET BETTER BECAUSE THEIR THAT TOP WORSE WITH THE REST OF THEM…BAU FBI PROUD PROFILING…CATCHING MORE KILLERS THAN BEFORE….HOW ARE THEY RELATED TO THE ONES IN THOSE FAMILIES OR DRS…..PAY ATTENTION ITS EASY…THEY DONT CARE WHEN THEY EVEN GET FINALLY CAUGHT…SO THER NOW IN PRISION…WHAT ABOUT THE ONES THEY LEFT IN THEIR DESTRUCTION…THE ONE SERIAL KILLER WHO KILLED..93 WOMEN IN EVERY STATE….HES A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW THE EVEL LIKES WHAT THEY DO….HE REMERED 93 WOMENS NAMES..CARS..PLACES MET…HAIR COLOR…AGE…RESIDENCE…WHAT THWY TAKLED ABOUT…WHAT DRINKS THEY HAD…HOW TALL.WEIGHT…HEIGHT…SHORT…FAT..HISPANIC…BLACK…WHITE…ASIAN…THEIR RELATIVES NAMES…AND EVERY STATE AND EXACTLY EVERY STEP OF HIS PROCESS OF HIS KILLINGS…THEN TOLD THEM WHERE ALL 93 OF THOSE WOMEN WERE BARRIED…AND THEN…GAVE THEM HIS COMPLETE DRAWINGS OF EVERY ONE OF THEM….AND AFTER 93 YEARS AND HE GOT IT ALL TO THE MARK AS HED DESCRIBED….MOST OF THEM IS DIDNT MATTER WHAT THEY MIGHT HAVE LOOKED LIKE….THEY WERE BONES OR PARTS AND PIECES…..DID YOU SEE ANY CONCERN OR REMORSE IN ALL THOSE FBI VIDEOS THEY GOT HIS INFO FROM….HE AND ANIMALS LIKE HIM LIKE TBH LIKE VHBC LIKE ABUSE FROM ALL…THEY DONT CARE…IT DOSENT EFFECT THEM AND THEY WOULD NEVER SUFFER LIKE THEY DESERVE….THEY CANT BECAUSE THEIR THEIR ON THE TOP BEYOND …ANYONES HELP..
I KNOW…SCIENTISTS…CLINICAL TRIALS…..MED..THERIPY..SHOCK….NOTHING…..THE COCHRAN GROUP IS THE NO ONE CLINICAL TRIALS GROUP THAT …DEFINES THE CATACORIES IN THE …DSM MANUAL AND THE NEW DSM-V5 AND THEIR. SO BAD AFTER THEY DID EVERYTHING….THEY ENDED THEIR TRIAL AFTER 2 YEARS….THEY NOW JUST CONNECT THEIR KIND WITH…SADISM..CULTS…JIM JONES…MANISION….AND THE FBIS SPECAL BAU 30 YEARS….DANGERIOUS. PERSONALITIES….I KNEW IT ALREADY ABOT HOW THESE THINGS DO WHAT THEY DO AND HOW THEY REACT TO DOING IT AND ALL ABOUT THEIR FLYING MONKEYS WHO THEN NEEDED TO TAKE MY CHILDRENS LIVES TOO AND STILL WONT STOP WHEN THEY ALL GOT WHAT THEY WANTED……AND IM GOING TO FIGHT AND WIN WITH THE TRUTH AND THER OWN PATTERN LEAVING A TRAIL WHEN THERE ARE THE OTHER HALF OF THE WORLD ONLY NEEDS EYES EARS…AND THE FIRST WORDS OUT OF THEIR MOUTHS…THEY HUNG THEMSELVES….WE NEVER DID ANYTHING WRONG. CDC MADE MILLIONS OF OUR OWN REG DRS STOP HELPING GIVE US THE LOWEST OF MEDICINES IN THE BOOK…WEVE BEEN FORCED TO GO TO A PLACE BECAUSE OF NOTHING WE HAVE…WERE NOT MENTALLY ILL…WE ARNT THE ONES WITH A BRAIN DISEASE..WE DONT HAVE ANY DISORDER CONCERNING OUR BRAIN FUNCTION….THAT MENTAL HEALT DECRIPTION CDC DID..THEY NEVER ASKED US WHAT WE WANTED OR OUR CARING DRS…THEY DID WHAT THEY WANTED TOO FOR NO REASON TO DO IT…THEN THAT CDC DECIDED NOW..THEY WERE GOING TO PUT WITH THOSE WORDS…SUBSTANCE ABUSE..ALCHOL DISORDERS…
ADDICTION…FROM BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS….AND THEN GAVE TOTAL REIGN OVER US TO WHO THEY CHOSE…AND THEIR CHOICES HAVE ONLY BEEN GUIDED BY MONEY AND HOW FAST THEY COULD GET ALL US BY THE NUMBERS AND QUICKEST TO USE US
..USE US …TO MAKE BILLIONS AND MOST THAT THOSE TBH ANIMALS ARE COMATOSE NOW AND BARELY HOLDING ON TO THE PERSONS ARM WHO NOW IS TAKING THEM FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THOSE FKNG DRS ARE DOING WHAT NORMAL CARING DRS DO…..THEY DONT CARE AND THE OTHERS ARE ME AND FEW AND SAMASHA WHO IS THE ONLY ORGANIZATION THAT WILL NOT LET PEOPLE GO TO ANY OF THEM AND SO THEY PAY FOR CERT AND LIC DRS BECAUSE THEY KBOW THEY DID THAT PROCESS BECAUSE THE CARE RIGHT AND I NEVER NEEDED ANYONE TO SIDE WITH ME ON RIGHT OR UNACCEPTABLE AND I DONT HAVE ANYTHING OR ANYTHING I WANTED TO BE IN CAREER THE HUSB WHO LOVED ME AND HIS FAMILY….THEY MADE SURE THEY ALL GOT EVERYTHING THAT MONEY COULDNT BUY TAKE KIDNAPPING AND THEY ARE NOW COMING TO MY HOUSE AND KNOWING I MUST HAVE A GOOD REASON MY WHOLE LIFE NEVER BEING ONE OF THEIR OTHER FLYING MONKEYS…AND I DIDNT LIVE ANYWHERE NEAR THEY COULD EVEN TRY A VISIT….AND SINCE THEY GOT MAD AT ME FOR SPEAKING WITH A QUESTION ASKING WHY SHE COULDNT TELL HER SON TO STOP TEXTING ME I HAVE OVER 200 I CANT USE MY PHONE HES COMING IN NOW USING DIFF LINES….SHE CALLED ME A LIAR…GOT MAD…LEFT AFTER MY DOG WOULDNT STOP BITING HER LEGS CLUELESS…BUT WHEN SHE GOT BACK TO HER HELL HOUSE HER OTHER SON TOOK OVER AND STARTED NOW TEXTING ME HOW I THOUGHT I GET AWAY WITH STEAL HIS MOTHERS SSI AND DIDNT I THINK THEY WOULDNT FIND OUT OR THEY WOULDNT CALL AND TELL THEM….I THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE SURE I WAS PUT IN FEDERAL PRISION FOR THE REST OF LIFE AND THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE SURE FOR WHAT IVE DONE THIS TIME…SO RIGHT ON TARGET…NEWEST IDEA…WAY….THEIR SADISTIC MOTHER WHO DROVE OVER 1 HR AT 7AM FOR THE 1ST TIME WHEN SHE HAS NEVER BEEN ASKED OR CAME….SHE CAME BECAUSE…ONLY TO DO ME A FAVOR AND TAKE ME TO THE POLICE AND LET ME JUST TURN IN MYSELF BESAUSE THEY KNEW I WOULDNT LIKE IF THE FBI CAME THEMSELVES TO ARREST ME AND PUT HANDCUFFS ON ME AND MAKE EVERYONE OF MY NEIGHBORS SEE ME IN THE BACK OF THEIR CAR AFTER ARRESTED…..THEY WERE GOING TO SAVE ME….THIS IS WHERE IT ENDS 1 YEAR LATER AFTER IT WAS TIME 20 YRS WHEN THEY BOUGHT MY DAUGHTER FOR HER HUSBAND SHE DIDNT WANT TO BE BOTHETED WITH EITHER…JUST LIKE THAT MOTHER THROWING ME UNDER THE BUS TO BE A WIFE AND HER COMMITMENT FOR HER OWN…….WHEN I STARTED CALLING HER WHICH SHE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE ALONG WITH THE REST…WITH HATE CRIMES…ONE OF SO MANY US FEDERAL LAWS THEY BROKE…AND AFTER NOW MY BABY SAYS HOW MUCH SHE HATES ME AND WISHES I WAS JUST DEAD AND DIE SHES NOT MY CHILD OR EVER WAS…AND IM NOTHING BUT A CUNT….WHILE TWO ADULTS THAT KNEW EVERYTHING SINCE THE DAY SHE CAME THEIR AFTER THEY BOUGHT HER GUARDINSHIP…I CAME RIGJT BACK WITH WHAT I NEEDED 1 WEEK LATER TO BRING HER HOME AND I WAS ALONE AND THEY ALL HELPED AND LIKED TO WATCH HER TOO AND THEY DID…..I LIT MY DAUGHTER SAY WHAT SHE DID WITHOUT A WORD…BECAUSE I KNOW SHE DIDNT DO ANYTHING IT NOT HER FAULT….AND ALL OF THEM NOT NOT ONLY KNEW I WOULD NEVER EVEN YELL AT ANYONES CHILD OR LET ALONE HURT THEM…..AND WHEN I TOLD HER ITS TIME TO CONVINCE ME WHAT SHE CONVINCED THE OTHERS OR NOT WHY SHE THRU MY DAUGHTER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BACKSEAT ON HER FACE AFTER TAKING OFF ALL HER CLOTHES AND IT WAS FREEZING AND SHE REFUSED TO GIVE ME BACK HER OWN CLOTHES ID BROUGHT I WAS THEIR FOR A WEDDING AND SHE WOULDNT EVEN LET ME HAVE HER OWN CARSEAT SO SHED BE SAFE GOING 3000 ACROSS THE ENTIRE STATES HOME….HER POLICE FRIEND WHO LOOKS TO GIVE TICKETS FOR AN ADULT NOT HAVING A SEATBELT ON….AFTER SHED CALLED HER MOTHER FOR A NEW PLAN BECAUSE THEIR COMBINED SCHEAM ON THIS ONE KIDNAPPING MY BABY DIDNT GO THEIR WAY AND SHE WAS REALLY MAD AND DESPERITALY TRYING AND SAYING TO GET A WAY NEW THAT THEY DIDNT KNOW YET…ALL THEM JUST BELIEVING I WOULDNT COME GET MY OWN CHILD FOR ANY REASON AND LET SOMEONE ELSE HAVE THEM IS NOTHING BUT THEIR OWN INSANE BELIEFS AND ONLY BECAUSE SHE DIDNT GET WHAT SHE WANTED FOR HER HUSBAND TO KEEP HIM AWAY FROM HER…MY DAUGHTER WAS CRYING SO HARD AND SHE WAS HURT FROM BEING THROWN COMPLETELY AGAINST THE OTHER DOOR AND THAT GOOD CARING POLICEMAN WITH MY CHILD TOO SO COLD NO CLOTHES …DIDNT CARE ONE BIT EITHER AND JUST SAID…ID BETTER GET OUT OF HERE AND LEAVE…BEFORE….HE CHANGES HIS MIND…..THAT IS THE CALL WHEN SHE JUST SAID….THAT WAS 20 YEARS AGO….HOW I SENT HER. ONLY $25 DOLLARS AND SHE HAD A COPY OF IT AND SHE DID ME A FAVOR TOO BY SAVING MY DAUGHTER BECAUSE SHE WAS GOING IN SOME SYSTEM AND HOW GREATFUL I SHOULD BE FOR HER SAVING HER….THEN SAYS HER FATHER NEVER DID ONE THING OR ANYONE ELSE…EVERYONE AFTER TELLING ME IF I KNEW EVEN HOW OLD MY DAUGHTER WAS AND SHE WAS 21 ALL THREE OF THEM….THESE KIND OF ANIMALS KEEP TRYING EVERY WAY AND COME UP SUCH INSANITY TO PROVE TO THE ANIMALS WHO JOIN IN THE ABUSE…TO BELIEVE THEM……JUST TO NOT EVER HEAR ONE WORD OF WHATS TRUE ABOUT ANYTHING THEY DO……….WELL I TOLD ALL THEM INCLUDING THOSE 4 NOW TBH DRS THEIR NOT GOING TO ABUSE ME OR ANYONE ELSE WHO COMES IN HERE FOR THE REASON THEIR ALREADY BEEN ABUSED TO A POINT OF ASKING FOR ANYONES HELP…..NO YOUR NOT GOING TO DO IT TOO AND MAKE OVER $750.000 AND BONUS FOR DOING IT FOR MONEY I KNOW WHERE IT GOES….SO BECAUSE I REFUSED TO EVEN TAKE HIS IDEA IF PRESCRIBING ME ONE MORE OF THESE TOXIC THINGS THAT I NEVER TOOK IN THE FIRST PKACE….HE TOLD ME LIKE THE REST OF THOSE TBH TOLD ALL THE PATIENTS…IF YOU DONT TAKE WHAT I WANT I WILL NOT GIVE YOU THE MEDICINE YOU NEED….I TOLD THEM ALL BEFORE I GOT IN THAT OFFICE THAT THIS TIME IF HE TRIED THAT I HAD A BODY CAM ON AND I WAS RECORDING THE CONVERSATIONS WITH EVERYONE IN THEIR JUST SO IT WAS KNOWN AND I WASNT HIDING ANYTHING…..I ALREADY HAVE RECORDS RXS GIVEN THE PAST 12 YRS IVE BEEN THEIR AND MORE CALLS THAT COULD FIT IN A MANUAL….I DINT ASK AN INSANE ANIMAL WHY THEY DO SOMETHING….THEIR IS MO ACCEPTABLE REASONS FOR MOST OF WHAT THEY DO….I MADE AN EXCEPTION A A FEW AFTER…JUST TO SEE WHAT COMES OUT OF THEIR MOUTH…..I HAD TO TAKE THAT TOXIC MED TO HELP ME BECAUSE NOW I WAS A SKITZOFRENIC AND I NEEDED IT….I ASKED HIM HOW HE KNEW THIS. .HE SAID HE READ IT IN MY FILES THEY HAD IN FRONT OF HIM…..SO I TOLD HIM SINCE I WAS 24 AND 35 YEARS LATER…..I HAD NO IDEA THAT IT WASNT ANXIETY….AND I WASNT FEELING THE RIGHT THINGS….I COULDNT TRUST MY OWN BODY AND SYMPTOMS….ALL THIS TIME…BUT NOW YOU FIGURED IT ALL OUT BY KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT IT WRONG BECAUSE YOU READ SOME WRITINGS IN MY FILE AND AFTER I TOLD YOU HOW I FELT AND YOU WANT ME TO BELIEVE THAT EVERYTHING IVE SAID THE FIRST 2 X AND NOW THAT IM SUDDENLY SOMETHING ELSE WHILE YOU IGNORED AND KEPT SAYING HOW SORRY YOU WERE…..THEN I ENDED IT AND I TOLD HIM NOT TO DO IT AGAIN….I TOLD HIM AFTER HE REFUSED THE ONLY THING THAT HELPED ME AND I COULDNT GET IT BECAUSE HE COULDNT SCORE HIS MONEY QUOTA BY SUBMITTING TO THEIR NEW PHARMACY THAT THEY NOW USED AS PROOF TO GET TOP DOLLARS FROM 4 INSURANCE COS……I HAVE IT ALL….AND I TOLD HIM FUCK YOU AND ILL TELL IT AGAIN IN COURT….HES A FUCKING LIAR…HE DIDNT READ ANYTHING IN THAT FILE ABOUT ME…OR ELSE HE WOULDNT HAD TRIED WITH ME….THEN THEY CAME THOSE MGS NURSES CAME TO MY HOUSE AFTER I TOLD THEM TO GIVE ME MY MED ANS EVERYONE ELSE THEIRS…..NOW AGAIN 7 IN THE MORNING MAKING COFFEE AND AT MY TINY WINDOW THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE IM OK……I TOLD BOTH THEM FUCK YOU. GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE…I DONT NEED YOUR OR ANY OF YOU COFFEE BUDDIE SICK DOCTORS….WE DONT CARE THE SAME WAY ..LEAVE ME ALONE . THEIR REASON WHEN I GOT I WAS ALLOWED TO LIVE FOR TWO MONTHS HAVING MED I NEED…I WAS TOLD BY ONE WHO WAS SAYING TO AVOCATE FOR ME…I WASNT GETTING IT…BECAUSE I DIDNT NEED IT….AND WHEN THEY CAME BACK AS THEY DO WITH THEIRHELP 1 X IT WAS BECAUSE..LOOK HOW I WAS ACTING BEING UPSET…WHEN I DIDNT HAVE IT…SO I REALLY DIDNT NEED IF I DIDNT ACT OK AND HAPPY WITHOUT IT…INSANE…JUST NEW ONE THATS ALL..LAST OH THEN WHEN MADE THEM LEAVE THEY AS THEY DO CALLED THE POLICE TO MY DOOR….I TOLD HIM I WAS BUSY AND I HAD MORE IMP THINGS THAN TO DEAL WITH HIS REASONS THEY USED…AND 3RD…I OPENED THE DOOR AND MADE SURE THEY WOULDNT COME BACK…BEFORE THAT SPECIAL ADVACATOR THEY PAID $145.000.09 A YR FOR OVERSEEING THE PLACE..I TOLD HER IF I WAS HER I WOULD EVEN OPEN MY MOUTH AND LET ANYTHING SHE HAS TO SAY SLIP OUT OF THAT MOUTH OF HERS…IM TOO CLOSE AND IM ONE OF THOSE DRS WHO CARE ANYTHING ABOUT YOU…THE NEXT ONE…HEARING THAT KNOWING…SAYS SHE WANT ME TO GET WHAT I NEED AND SHELL EVEN MAKE ME THE APPOINTMENT AND GET ME IN TOMORROW….I DIDNT WANT TO ASK BUT I DID.. WITH THE 5 TBH GRAND NRE MEMBER WHO HAS WITHOUT EVEN SEEING OR KNOWING WHO I AM …SAID HE WASNT GOING TO GIVE ME WHAT I NEEDED EITHER…AND I DIDNT TO SLEEP ANYMORE AND I DIDNT HAVE DEPRESSION ANYMORE EITHER….THEY TOOK EVERYTHING THAT I NEEDED 4 THINGS…WHICH WERE AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN WHAT IVE TAKEN AND NO HIGHER DOESES WHEN THEY CAME UP WITH ALL THOSE REASONS……SHE SAYS IVE NEVER SEEN THIS NEW DR THEY HAVE…….THERE IN LIES THE INSANITY…I SAID EXACTLY…SO WHY WOULD HE TELL ME TOO JUST LIKE THE REST …HES NEVER SEEN ME….SO THE REAL REASON AND ONLY REASON I WILL GET HELP IN THAT PLACE…IS IF I HAVE WHAT YOUR DRS WANT ME TO HAVE AND THEN GIVE ME THE MEDICINE THAT I NEED FOR HAVING WHAT THEY SAY….AND STILL DOING THAT YOU WILL STILL NOT GIVE ME THE SIMPLE THING I NEED TO HELP ME WHEN IM LUCKY EVEN THAT THATS ALL IM ASKING…CUSE THE REST ARE ALOT WORSE AND KNOWING MORE BECAUSE YPU ALL KNOW ON TOP ABOUT HOW AND WHAT ITS DONE TO ME RELIVING MY OWN AND LIVING BOTH OF THEIRS AND IM BARELY MAKING IT ALONE FOR YEARS….THAT WAS THE 1 AND ONLY TIME WHEN I SAID IF DIDNT DO WHAT THEY WANTED TO GET THEIR MONEY I WOULD NEVER GET IT EVEN IF I AGREED TO THIS ONE LIKE THE PAST 6 YEARS. WHEN THEY HAD MORE $ THAN THE WORLD….SHE SAID YES YOUR RIGHT…FOR TELLING THE TRUTH EVEN THOUGH IVE KNOWN THE 1ST DAY AFTER THEIR 1 DR CAME IN…SHE IS NOT INCLUDED…THE FBI ALREADY HAS BEEN INVOLVED AND HAS THEIR.SCHEME AND BACKGROUND…AND JULY 2018 OR 19 WHEN THEY TRIED THEIR HARDEST TO STEAL $50 IN THIS FEE FEDERAL GOV GRANT AND TOLD THEM AFTER THEY WERE WARNED AND LOST BUY THEIR STUPIDITY AND THEIR WORDS…THEY HAD STILL BETTER DO WHAT THE LAW SAYS FOR EVERYONE AND THE ONLY ONES ARE THEM AND TO PUT ON LINE TO PUBLIC ACCESS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IN GRANTS SPENDING AND DRS BACKGROUNDS AND ALL STAFF THEIR JOBS REQUIREMENTS LICES AND TRAINING AND ALL EXECUTIVES MONEYS SPENT AND FOR WHAT REASONS…BECAUSE ITS NOT YOUR MONEY ITS OURS THE FED GOVERNMENT….THEY SHOULD HAVE STOPPED ALONE BUT THEY DIDNT AND THE PAST WEEK I CAME TO KNOW MORE THAT I DIDNT WANT TO…THEIR LAST MTGS…THEY NOT ONLY PUT OFF OFF THEIR $ TO SPECIAL CONS FROM VERY REPUTABLE LOAN PEOPLE OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS…AND I KNEW THAT THEY OWED $850.000 ABOUT AND BEFORE THAT $50 MILLION STUNT THEY TRIED WITH THE GOV THEY WOULD…AS THEY DO…NOW THEIR SAYING AND INVOLVING CHILDTEN WHO HAVE SPECIAL NEEDS THE AREA ON AGING OLD PEOPLE AND EVEN OUT OF STATE FOSTER CARE CHILDREN..PROSTATE CARE…..THEY WILL DO IT ALL….THERES JUST ONE MAJOR PROBLEM AND THEY WRITE AND MAKE CHARTS AND COMMITTEES AND SWITCH RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE DOG GROOMER SO THEY COULD SAY THEY DIDNT KNOW…BUT THEY WILL DO WHAT THEIR TOLD TO DO AND FIX IT SO TO GET MORE MONEY….THEY DONT DO ANYTHING FOR ANYBODY AND THEIR GOING BEYOND WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL AND PEOPLE ARE BELIEVING THEM AND THEY HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF PAYING ANYONE ANYTHING INCLUDING THE GOV AND PUT EVEN IN THEIR OWN LAW THEY ARE NOT A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM THEY ARE NOT THE NOT THIS…AND THEY THEREFORE ARE NOT LIABLE BY EVEN CAUSING THE DEATH IF THEY SIMPLEY IGNORE THEM AND THATS IT..NO LAW CAN CHANGE. ANYTHING THEY DO NO MATTER IF ITS WRITTEN OR STATED ON THEIR OWN PART THEIR IS NO LIABILITY…….FUCK THEM AND THAT FAMILY WORD WHO TERRIZED MY BABY STARTING 9 MOS OLD AND MY SON WHO ALWAYS SMILED AND NEVER DID HE LEAVE MY SIDE LET ALONE EVER KNOW ANYONE OF THEM ESISTED….I WAS WAITING FOR MY CHILDREN AFTER THEY HATED ME FOR THINGS I NEVER DID….MY DAUGHTER 21 COULDN’T STOP CRYING…MY BEAUTIFUL SON MY WORLD…..TOOK IT THE WORST WHAT SADISTIC LIES TWISTED HIS WORLD IN A SECOND WHEN I BELIEVED AFTER FOUR HRS NOT WANTING TO EVEN LET HIS DAD TAKE HIM….AND NOW HE HAS NO MEMORIES OF US AND HOW MUCH I LOVED HIM AND HOW WE DID EVERYTHING TOGETHER FOR TEN YEARS OF STARTING HIS OWN LIFE I WANTED FOR HIM…HE HAS A MASTERS IN PSCHY THAT HE STRUGGLED AND HAD NO MINEY FOR 6 YEARS AND THEY TOOK HIS EYESIGHT ON TOP OF HIS MEMORIES…HES SO UPSET AND HES SO BAD …CUSE WHAT THEVE MADE HIM BEL8EVE AND THAT I DID OURLTRAGES THINGS AND THEY NEVER MISSED ONE SICK THING AFTER THEY GOT TO BELIEVE I NEVER LOVED HIM EITHER IF I DID ID BE THERE AND IF I DIDNT DO ALL THOSE THINGS LIES THAT I WAS THE ONLY REASON HE HAD TO BE THERE AND HE WAS TERRIED A LONG TIME BEFORE THIS TO NOT SAY MY NAME BECAUSE THEY HURT HIM AND HE COMPLIED WITH EVERYTHING AND …IT WAS TOO MUCH IT WAS TOO MUCH AND THEY TOLD HIM UP TO 18 THAT HE SHOULDNT HAVE INV ME TO HIS GRAD AFTER SO MANY YEARS I MISSED HIM…BECAUSE I KICKED OUT…SO HE WAS WRONG…FIRST THEY SAID IF HE INVITES ME HE OR NONE OF THOSE ANIMALS REFEUSED TO GO IF HE DID….BUT HE CHOSE AND I WENT…THEN I WAS KICKED OUT AND THAT WASNT ENOUGH HE WAS COMING OVER FOR A VERY SMALL BEAR CUSE ID SPENT 1200 JUAT GETTING THERE TO SEE HIM …HE WAS NOW TOLD THAT I WAS BUSY DRINKING BEER AND HE DIDNT NEED TO COME…..AND STILL HES BELIEVING ALL THOSE NOTHING BUT LIES AND I NEVER DID ONE THING OR ASK ANY OF THEM OR EVEN DID I MENTION ABOUT WHAT I KNOW THAT WOULD HAVE PUT THEM ALL AWAY 45 YEARS AGO….I JUST RAN AND STAYED AWAY…..I WARNED THEM NEVER DO IT IT TO MY CHILDREN…DO NOT EVEN PUT OR WRITE THEIR NAMES IN ANYTHING OF YOUR SICKNESS AND THEY NEVER QUIT….MY CHILDREN JUST LIKE ME ARE GOING TO GO THRU THINGS THEY CANT STOP ANY OF IT FROM THE LIES AND THEIR GOING TO NEED SOMEONE TO GO TO THAT WONT PROFILE OR DISMISS THEM FOR ANYTHING….AND I HAVE NOTHING AND THEIR HATE IS SO MUCH TO BEAR BUT I CANT LEAVE UNTIL I KNOW THEY WILL BE OK WHEN THEY START FINDING AND KNOWING ALREADY WHAT HAS HAPPENED WHEN I EVER SEE THEM…THEIR SCARED BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THEY DO TO CONTROL AND TAKE OVER A LIFE AND NOBODY WANTS TO BE HURT BY ANYONE…THEY WILL KNOW AND IT WILL COME WHEN THEY FEEL SAFE TO HAVE THEIR OWN FEELINGS AND BELIEFS AND IVE NEVER BEEN WRONG THATS HOW I KNEW THE EFFECTS THATS WHY I KNEW ID HAVE TO STAY DURIN ALL THAT PAIN OF THEM HATING CUT….ITS ALL THE SAME… WHEN YOU FORCE YOUR WILL ON A CHILD 1 X HAS MORE DEVISTARION THAN THEM GOING THRU A NATIONAL DIASTER…UNLESS SOMEONE IS THEIR TO MAKE THEM FEEL ITS OK…..AND THEY DONT FEEL THEY DONT KISS EACH OTHER…AND UNTIL THAT TBH AND THAT DIR IS OUT IN PRISION …I WILL NOT STOP FOR MY CHILDREN ARE GOING TO GET WHAT THEY NEED AND SO IT EVERYONES CHILD TOO AND MY LIFE IS OVER AND I CANT GET BACK WHAT THEY TOOK OR MY CHILDRENS COMPLETE GROWING UP WAS NOTHING BUT TWISTED LIES THEN BLAME THEM ON TOP ..BUT I KNOW I DID EVERYTHING I COULD AND I NEVER LEFT THEM BEHIND..I NEVER GAVE THEM PERMISSIONS TO TAKE THEM FOR ANYTHING…..THEY TOOK OT AND HUMAN OR KILLING DOES NOT MAKE THEM PAY…NOW YOULL BE THE FIRST BECAUSE ITS ALL GOING TO BE PUBLISHED ALONG WITH THE OTHERS IF THEY WANT IN MY WORDS OF TRUTH AND EVERYTHING THEY BELIEVED WAS OK…VENTURA STAR..THE COUNTY…LA TIMES…USA TODAY…THEN IM GOING TO FIND OUT HOW TO PUT ALL THEIR WORKS AND THE TRUTH OF WHAT THAT MONEY IS GOING FOR..THIS HAS ALREADY STARTED….NO MATTER HOW OR WHEN THE FBI MAKES THEIR CASE…ITS GOING NO MATTER WHAT AND THATS MY DECISION AND REASONS ARE MY CHILDTEN AND HOW MUCH I LOVE THEM…ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO IN MY WORLD…DEBBIE ..