Prenda Gets Some Tiny Bit Of Good News, As It May Get Out Of Two Critical Cases

from the walking-the-tight-rope dept

It's been a busy day for Prenda news, with some trouble in Minnesota and central California. However, it may have some slightly better news in two other key cases where judges had suddenly taken a deeper interest in what exactly was going on with Prenda. First up, the Sunlust case in Florida, which was actually the first case where a judge suggested Prenda was engaged in "fraud on the court" during an Abbott & Costello-worthy hearing. That case has continued to move forward with efforts to put sanctions on the key Prenda players. The lawyer, Graham Syfert, for the defendant, Tuan Nguyen, surprised some people by dropping Brett Gibbs from the target list, after he more or less threw his bosses at Prenda under the bus. However, Syfert has surprised a few folks by filing a motion to withdraw all pending motions. Basically, they're saying "drop the case and don't seek sanctions." That has left a lot of people scratching their heads, but suggests strongly that a settlement of sorts has been reached.

Perhaps the legal experts here can fill in the specifics about this one. I believe that the judge could continue to seek sanctions from Team Prenda if she feels it's appropriate, or if something improper happened, but it seems a lot less likely that this will happen now that Nguyen/Syfert have effectively bowed out of the case. Considering how deeply interested in the specifics the judge in this case had been, this is unfortunate. Yes, we already have Judge Wright's ruling on a similar matter in California, but having other courts come to the same conclusion seems like it would be useful.

Then we have the other Prenda case in Northern California, where the judge had become curious as to who exactly had signed a form on behalf of "Salt Marsh," ordering the original document to be produced. Last week, Paul Duffy claimed ignorance and tried to throw Brett Gibbs under the bus (again). Meanwhile, former Prenda paralegal/claimed boss of AF Holdings/Ingenuity 13, Mark Lutz, suggested that he had signed "on behalf of Salt Marsh" but no longer had the original. The judge could have dug deeper on that, but apparently has decided to let it go, saying that the question about Salt Marsh was "substantially complied with" and is ending the case.

Because AF's counsel has now substantially complied with the Court's order, the Court sees no basis to continue deferring a final judgment.

That means that particular case will also be closed. So, assuming the Florida case is similarly closed, that will leave the Judge Wright ruling in Central California as the only main battleground concerning the overall nature of Prenda's antics over the past few years.

Filed Under: brett gibbs, california, florida, graham syfert, john steele, mark lutz, paul duffy, paul hansmeier, prenda, tuan nguyen
Companies: ingenuity 13, prenda, prenda law, salt marsh, sunlust

Mark Lutz Claims He Signed 'On Behalf Of Salt Marsh' But No One Seems To Know Where The Original Is

from the of-course-not dept

You may remember last month that yet another court investigating the actions of Team Prenda (this time in Northern California) had ordered Prenda's Paul Duffy (who is representing AF Holdings in the case as a recent replacement for Brett Gibbs) to produce the original version of a document filed last year in the case, which was supposedly "signed" by "Salt Marsh." This is kind of important, because everyone is now claiming that "Salt Marsh" is a trust that owns AF Holdings, but a trust can't sign anything. The court granted some extra time, but both Paul Duffy and Mark Lutz have submitted declarations on the matter. First up, Mark Lutz, in which he claims that the "Salt Marsh" signature is his own, sorta:

Mr. Gibbs also from time to time sent me certifications to sign on behalf of AF Holdings stating that I am familiar with ADR policies. My practice was to sign those certifications on behalf of the Salt Marsh Trust and return them to Mr. Gibbs.

That's about all that's in there. Of course, I'm not sure if this means he "signed" the name Salt Marsh or he signed his own name on behalf of Salt Marsh, or if nobody signed a damn thing and a document was sloppily submitted with a claimed signature of Salt Marsh. Note that Lutz does not produce the actual signed document.

So, moving on to Paul Duffy, he claims that since he came onto the case after all this happened, he doesn't have the document, and he has no reason to have the document. It's the "what? that's not my problem!" defense:

Due to the date of my appearance in this matter, I have no knowledge of the filings of AF Holdings, LLC's ADR certification in this matter.

Duffy also notes that since he and Gibbs are both subject to Judge Wright's order down in Southern California, he reached out to Gibbs via their respect attorneys to see if Gibbs had the document:

Philip W. Vineyard, my attorney... was advised by Andrew Waxler, attorney for Mr. Gibbs.. that Mr. Gibbs states that he does not have possession of the signed ADR certification.

So, Lutz doesn't have it. Duffy doesn't have it. Gibbs doesn't have it. Of course not. Duffy then points out that whoever did the filing is responsible for it:

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(c)(4), the ECF user, rather than the user's law firm, retains full responsibility for any document filed through the ECF filer's user ID and password.

This seems like it's Duffy (again) throwing Gibbs under the bus, since Gibbs filed the actual documents. Let's see how the court reacts to all of this.

Filed Under: brett gibbs, john steele, mark lutz, paul duffy, salt marsh
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law, salt marsh