I can see why the defendant decided to roll the dice...not exactly overwhelming evidence of an attempt to mitigate damages....

Not sure this is the "complete" version of the previously referenced minute order. This one looks like an order memorializing the proceedings and the court's evidentiary rulings. It ends with the matter under submission.

The minute order Orly so proudly referred to actually reaches a judgment. Reading between the lines of the snippet Orly supplied the other day, the judgment amount was probably limited to $290K because Orly's ad damnum clause (ad damnum collage?) did not correctly seek all applicable statutory interest amounts. (Not that it matters because it's very doubtful Orly will collect the full amount in any event.)

What does this mean : Who's on first ?



Marc Ettinger (male) is only defending Johnson (male).
Only Obly and Ettinger are shown as appearing. Were Johnson, Iskander and Pierson present?

Does "in default" mean "not present"?

Is Raif female? (I only know Raif as a diminutive (?) of Ralph)

So are who's 1, 2 and 3 Obly? Did SHE violate a bankruptcy stay?

It appears to me, based on the document, that the Court did.

Defaulted defendants are not present.


Counsel refers to either Taitz, or both counsel (Taitz and Ettinger); "she" refers to Taitz.

So who-1 is either or both counsel
who-2 (she) is the JUDGE
who-3 (she) is the JUDGE

Of course, didn't the lease say "jointly and severably?"

Maybe that's why the judge took it "under submission", rather than ruling directly.

My take is that the court took the matter under submission to review the piles of poo left by Orly in order to verify a couple of points affecting the outcome. For one, the Court needed to see if the "rumor" that one of the defendants was in bankruptcy could be substantiated anywhere in the record. For another, perhaps Her Honor needed to review Orly's so-called "pleadings" to determine what damages, exactly, could legally be awarded.

According to Orly's blog, in its subsequent minute order entered on 4/1 (of which I've only seen the purported first page), the Court explained:



My best guess? Orly probably told the Court that she'd gotten some kind of bankruptcy paperwork in the mail but, being the Worst Lawyer in the History of the Planet, she wasn't quite sure how or if it affected her lawsuit. The Judge interpreted this as a concession by Plaintiff that bankruptcy proceedings had been commenced and, therefore, judgment could not be entered against Iskander.

While this may not be what you'd call, uh, precision jurisprudence, I'm sure Judge Fell was happy to get Orly OOHFCR ASAP.

Lordy. A bankruptcy stay operates to halt all collection actions by creditors. Therefore, the court advised counsel (for the creditor, Orly Taitz) that she (Orly Taitz) may be violating the bankruptcy stay if she (Orly Taitz) proceeds.

Only attorneys are listed in a minute order as appearing. Unless a defendant or party takes the stand, they will not be mentioned in the minute order.

"In default" does not mean "not present". It means the defendant never answered the complaint and the time has passed to do so. If an "entry of default" has been made against that defendant before trial, then the plaintiff may proceed at trial to prove the damages caused by that defendant. That defendant does not get to say anything at trial, because they are in default.

Raif may be of any known gender, but it is not relevant to the minute order.

If Orly proceeded against Raif to "prove up" her default and if Raif was in bankruptcy at that time, then Orly would be violating the bankruptcy stay. Which is what the judge advised her.

According to the minute order of the judgment, the court calculated the present value of the unpaid remainder of the ten-year lease at a discount rate of 1.75% (SF Fed reserve rate +1%) This came out to be greater than the $290,000 Orly asked for in her complaint. So she got the $290,000 asked for in her complaint.

As the present value calculation was done as of the date of the judgment, there is no additional interest on the $290,000 as of the date of the judgment. However, post-judgment interest pursuant to California code will accrue from and after the judgment at the legal rate of interest, currently 10% per annum.

It's now a permanent injunction. Iskander filed Chap. 7 on 4/23/2007, case number 8:07-bk-11154 in C.D. Cal., Santa Ana Division. He was discharged 5/4/2009.

Neither Medical Dental nor Orly filed a claim, although it should be noted that Orly Taitze was on the creditor notice matrix so she clearly had actual or constructive knowledge as the principal of the Medical Dental.

IOW, she screwed up. Again. Stupid woman does not bother to read notices from the Bk Court and fails to educate herself about elementary bankruptcy law.

While technically speaking Iskander has a debt, Orly is legally prohibited from any effort to recover from him. Forever. This one is feeneeshed.

Another brilliantly constructed case from the world's foremost legal scholar, Orly Taitz.

Jeez, he was discharged before she even filed the complaint. I don't think "technically speaking" he has a debt to her at all. It was listed, it was discharged, therefore it did not exist when she filed.

The minute order of the judgment notes that if there indeed was a bankruptcy "the judgment should not include" Iskander.

Damn straight. If the girl wonder files an abstract of judgment or otherwise attempts collection, she could find herself in front of a bankruptcy judge explaining her willful harassment of a discharged debtor.

Yup, the moron lowballed her own damage computation.

Yosef may not be pleased.

What about the other defendants/lessees?

The other two have "joint and several liability". She could collect from one of them, either of them, or both of them, up to a total of $290,000.

That's what I thought.

I'm curious why neither of them put up any defense. If they were holding off declaring bankruptcy themselves on the off chance the suit would be dismissed, I'd have thought they would have put up a little bit of a fight.

Also, something stood out that seemed a little unusual. My experience with commercial real estate in SoCal is that ten year leases aren't the norm. When I was offered what I felt was a great lease rate for my San Diego office in 1995, the longest term I could lock it in for was three years. It seems to me that awarding her damages based on ten years of vacancy is a little bit unusual.

Ten year commercial leases aren't so unusual. Typically, long-term leases will have escalation clauses tied to an index so that rates will go up with inflation/cost of living etc. If you think a bad season is coming, a long-term lease can lock in a tenant at a good rate. And if the split, you can sue them, like Orly did here.

Not that she will get anything out of it.

That's true. Winning a judgement and collecting it can be two very different things. Unless either of the two has significant assets (in which case, I doubt this would have gone to trial) I expect there will be two more BK filings in the near future.

Yes BB, you are technically correct as always. There was/is a debt, but there is no personal liability for Iskander after the discharge injunction has been entered. In the case of an unsecured debt (which this appears to be), there is no lien either, so the discharge meant that Orly was feenished before she started. Nobody nowhere is going to pay Iskander's share.

So in reality, Orly still loses. Perfect!

The worst lawyer in the world found a way to screw up a surefire winner. Big News...

It is going to cost Orly more in fees, etc than she is ever going to extract out of these 2 stiffs.