Team Prenda Gets Even More Ridiculous: Mark Lutz Files Bar Complaint Against Brett Gibbs

from the this-won't-end-well dept

Team Prenda has a history of doing the classic troll move: accuse the other side of doing what you're actually doing. Just recently, we've seen various members of Team Prenda -- John Steele, Mark Lutz, Paul Hansmeier and Peter Hansmeier -- accuse the lawyers who helped expose their practices (Morgan Pietz and Nick Ranallo) of being worthy of sanctions when it was actually Team Prenda itself who is facing significant sanctions. This sort of "I know you are, but what am I" tactic appears to be a popular one with Team Prenda. When Brett Gibbs was a member of Team Prenda, he engaged in exactly that, trying to get Judge Wright thrown off the case for bias, while also claiming that Pietz deserved sanctions, and even claiming that there was no proof Pietz really represented anyone.

Of course, now that Brett Gibbs has switched sides, and has been willing to provide depositions about how Team Prenda is lying, it appears that he's now the latest target. There were some rumors yesterday that Mark Lutz had filed a bar complaint against Gibbs, but now it's been confirmed in a filing by John Steele in the case before Judge Wright (we'll have more about today's hearing in that case in a bit).

As you may recall, in a different case in Northern California, Team Prenda had been ordered to produce the actual signature of "Salt Marsh" as was signed to a court filing. Mark Lutz then claimed that Gibbs regularly sent him "certifications to sign on behalf of AF Holdings" and he signed them Salt Marsh, as that was the name of the trust that owned AF Holdings. Gibbs responded by pointing out that none of this was true, and he never even knew Lutz was even affiliated with these companies until months later. In other words, Gibbs very clearly said that Lutz was lying to the court.

So, now, we see the response: Lutz has filed a bar complaint in California against Gibbs, claiming that Gibbs is the one who's lying.

My name is Mark Lutz and I am the manager of a company, AF Holdings, LLC, ("AF") that until July 3, 2013, was represented by Mr. Gibbs. The thrust of this complaint is that AF's attorney, Mr. Gibbs, is actively assisting AF's adversaries in exchange for his own personal financial gain.

By the way, I'd suggest you compare the language Lutz used in his filing for sanctions against Pietz and Ranallo, with the bar complaint against Gibbs. It's a guess, but I find it unlikely these two were written by the same individual.

That said, the bar complaint is particularly ridiculous. The more you read, the more ridiculous it gets.

In February, 2013, Judge Wright issued an order to show cause solely against Mr. Gibbs with respect to a case where he was representing AF. (Exhibit G) Mr. Gibbs did not inform me of this hearing. I later learned that at the hearing, Mr. Gibbs repeatedly lied to the Court, making such claims as he was "essentially a secretary" and that other attorneys that I had never spoken to about that case were AF's attorneys. (Exhibit H) As a side note, I would like to inform the California bar that Mr. Gibbs has filed and supervised hundreds of cases on behalf of AF all across the country. Mr. Gibbs was the only attorney I EVER spoke with about the case before Judge Wright. After the March 11, 2013, hearing, Judge Wright issued another order to show cause and scheduled a hearing for it on April 2, 2013 (Exhibit I) Because of Mr. Gibbs' testimony at the March 11 hearing, AF was now a defendant in the new order to show cause. In other words, my own attorney transformed an OSC against him into an OSC against my company based on complete lies to the judge.

The complaint goes on and on about how Gibbs was doing all this stuff without ever contacting Lutz. Of course, given Gibbs' clear testimony that he had no idea Lutz was even associated with these companies until later, that would make a lot of sense, wouldn't it? Similarly, given Lutz's close connections to John Steele, the idea that he hadn't spoken to Steele (who Gibbs has noted was directing much of the litigation effort) is particularly difficult to believe.

I'm certainly not as familiar with how the bar complaint process goes, but one hopes that the California state bar will at least take the time to read through the rulings in the various cases, including Judge Wright's ruling against Prenda, in order to understand who is credible here and who is not.

Filed Under: bar complaint, brett gibbs, california sate bar, john steele, mark lutz, otis wright, paul hansmeier
Companies: af holdings, prenda, prenda law