JOINT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Intervene for Limited Purpose of Accessing… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 1303)

Summary

WFG National Title Insurance Company and Novastar, LLC filed this joint motion on 04/29/22 as Document 1303 in Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW (C.D. Cal.), asking Judge Stephen V. Wilson to let them intervene to unseal the trial exhibits and the Government's exhibits to its oppositions to the motions to suppress (Docket nos. 188 and 207). They wanted the exhibits for their Los Angeles Superior Court civil cases against Tamara Dadyan and Arthur Ayvazyan, set for trial on May 17, 2022 and July 25, 2022, and offered to file them there under seal. The motion alleges the defendants used synthetic borrowers, fabricated title documents and stolen notary stamps to obtain loans and title policies, then moved on to PPP loans. Novastar's claim centers on a $637,000 loan to a synthetic buyer; WFG puts its damages at $2,169,221.00.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors. Pages 4, 5, 64–70, 79–85, 157, 164, and 167 of 170 are not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Id

#:19963

LORI C. HERSHORIN (SBN 155977)
HERSHORIN & HENRY, LLP 1977 2229 PZ kb

26475 Rancho Parkway South
Lake Forest, California 92630 aan
949-859-5600 BO
Email: Lorih@hhlawgroup.com By
Attorney for Prospective Intervenors
WEG TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
A South Carolina Corporation and NOVASTAR, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO.: 2:20-CR -00579-SVW
Plaintiff, WEG TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
AND NOVASTAR LLC’S JOINT NOTICE
Vv. OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
INTERVENE FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF
RICHARD AYVAZYAN, ACCESSING JUDICIAL RECORDS
aka “Richard Avazian” and
“Tuliia Zhadko,”
MARIETTA TERABELIAN, DATE:
aka “Marietta Abelian” and TIME:
“Viktoria Kauichko,” JUDGE: Hon. Stephen V. Wilson
ARTUR AYVAZYAN, COURTROOM: 10A
aka “Arthur Ayvazyan,” LOCATION: 350 W. 157 St.
TAMARA DADYAN, Los Angeles, CA 90012
MANUK GRIGORYAN,
aka “Mike Grigoryan,” and
“Anton Kudiumov,”
ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN,
EDVARD PARONYAN.
aka “Edvard Paronian” and
“Edward Paronyan,” and
VAHE DADYAN,
Defendants.

-i-

WFG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

se 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page2of170 Page ID
#:19964

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that WFG National Title Insurance Company, a South Carolina
Corporation (“WFG”) and Novastar, LLC (“Novastar”) (collectively “Prospective Intervenors”)
hereby move the Court to allow them to intervene in the above-captioned matter for the limited
purpose of requesting the Court to unseal trial exhibits admitted into evidence during the criminal
trial of the within criminal case for use in the upcoming civil trials of Tamara Dadyan and Arthur
Ayvazyan (collectively “Criminal Defendants’) for loan fraud and RICO claims. This motion is
submitted concurrently with an ex parte application for order shortening time, before the Honorable
Stephen V. Wilson in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division of the First Street Courthouse, located at 350 W. First St, Los Angeles, CA 90012, and is not
set for hearing.

This motion is made under the First Amendment of the United States, applicable common law,
and the inherent supervisory authority of the Court over its own records, and files for an order:

1. Permitting WFG and Novastar to intervene in this proceeding for the limited purpose

of enforcing its First Amendment and common law rights of access;

2. Unsealing all exhibits admitted into evidence at trial and the Government’s exhibits to

its Motions in Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Suppress the Evidence obtained at
Premises-1 and Premises-4 (Docket nos. 188 and 207) for the limited purpose use as
evidence in WFG and Novastar’s respective Civil trials, whereby WFG and Novastar
agree to adhere to this Court’s Protection order and to submit requested documents to
the State Superior Court under seal.

This motion is made on the grounds that the First Amendment and common law right of access
require that trial exhibits and exhibits attached to dispositive motions be open to the public, and there
are other alternatives to complete closure that would protect the privacy interests of third parties and

Criminal Defendants. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 609 n. 25 (1982)

WFG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

id

ase 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page3of170 Page ID

#:19965

(stating members of the public must be heard on the question of their exclusion); Press-Enterprise Co.
v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8 (1986) (The First Amendment applies to proceedings and judicial
records); Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 597-98 (1978) (the common law provides a right
to access judicial documents); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.
2003) (stating documents included in dispositive motions are not afforded protected status).

This joint motion is based on Prospective Intervenors’ Joint Motion to Intervene for a Limited
Purpose of Accessing Judicial Records and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support
Thereof, the Declaration of Lori C. Hershorin in Support of WFG and Novastar’s Joint Motion to
Intervene, and the Court’s file herein.

DATED: April 27, 2022 HERSHORIN & HENRY, LLP

— yi
LORI C. HERSHORIN
Attorney for Prospective Intervenors
WEG TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY and
NOVASTAR, LLC

WFG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ra

se 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page6of170 Page ID
#:19968

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this motion is to access judicial records from the within criminal matter
involving Criminal Defendants, Tamara Dadyan and Arthur Ayvazyan (collectively “Criminal
Defendant’s”), relevant to Prospective Intervenors’, WFG National Title Company, South Carolina
corporation (“WFG”) and Novastar, LLC (“Novastar’’) (collectively “Prospective Intervenors”), civil
complaints! against Criminal Defendants and their co-conspirators. These cases are set for trial in the
Los Angeles Superior Court on May 17, 2022 and July 25, 2022. Prospective Intervenors seek to
exercise their First Amendment and common law rights of access to the criminal court’s records to
acquire vital evidence for use in their civil trials.

Prospective Intervenors’ civil cases are inextricably intertwined with the criminal case as both
the United States and the Prospective Intervenors were victims of the Criminal Defendants’ elaborate
fraud and conspiracy scheme using identity theft, wire fraud, synthetic borrower information and
manufactured documents to defraud lenders and title insurance companies. These Criminal
Defendants and their co-conspirators falsified borrower and real property information to induce
lenders to loan substantial sums of money to real and synthetic individuals for the purchases of real
properties, resulting in millions of dollars in losses. In addition, Defendants induced title insurance
companies to issue policies for the fraudulently obtained properties by creating fraudulent sales
agreements, false identities, fake employer information, and falsely recorded title documents.

Here, the pre-trial documents and trial exhibits are under a Court order sealing these records
and the records are absent from the public’s view even though they are referenced in the trial
transcripts. These criminal court records shed light and provide a wealth of evidence in support of

Prospective Intervenors’ civil claims. Moreover, as members of the public who perform a vital public

1 The civil cases are entitled WFG v. Escrow Doc et al. (“WFG v. Dadyan”), case number BC640157, and Akopyan v.

Yesayan et al. (‘“Novastar v. Dadyan’”), case number BC597238.

WFG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ase 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page7of170 Page ID

#:19969

function — providing loans and title insurance to the public — Prospective Intervenors legally should be
permitted to access these records under the First Amendment and common law. Accordingly, the
motion to intervene should be granted and the pre-trial and trial documents unsealed for use in the
parallel civil trials.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Criminal and Civil Defendants (collectively “Defendants”) engaged in pattern of racketeering
activities for over 10 years, similar in purpose, results, participants, methods of commission, and
victims. Decl. of Lori C. Hershorin, filed herewith, § 4 (“Hershorin Dec.”); Complaints filed in the Los
Angeles Superior Courts attached as Exhibits A and B. Defendants used email correspondence,
telephone communications, U.S. wire transfers, and the U.S. Mail to falsify information to induce
lenders into making loans to the criminal enterprise using “synthetic” borrowers. Jd. at 8. Defendants
further created websites and email addresses linked to phony businesses to provide employment
references to loan and title companies for synthetic buyers. Jd. The criminal enterprise used the County
Recorder’s Office, U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, and California Superior Courts to continue their
racketeering activities. Jd. at { 7. Each of the Defendants agreed to personally participate in the
operation, management or conduct of the racketeering enterprise. Moreover, Defendants targeted
Prospective Intervenors, and duped them into making loans and issuing title insurance on phantom
borrowers and phantom security. Jd. at §{ 9-14.

Defendants created non-existent, “synthetic” persons to defraud Prospective Intervenors and
other lenders. /d. at J§ 8, 12. Thereafter, they would transfer real properties into the names of those
synthetic persons or entities; open bank accounts and credit cards in the synthetic persons’ names; and
falsify employment information, assets, credit history, and loan documentation for the synthetic
person to lure lenders into funding certain loans. Jd. at f 9-12. Each of the defendants either (1)
falsified names or agreed to allow falsified names in the real estate transactions; (2) assisted with the

preparation of fraudulent loan applications by falsifying bank information, fabricating employment
-2-

WEG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19970

histories and phone numbers for false employers, manufacturing credit information and/or other
documents such as bank statements and tax returns to make the synthetic persons appear legitimate;
(3) recorded fabricated title documents in the chains of title such as Trustee’s Deeds Upon Sale
representing that foreclosure sales of previous lenders occurred even though no such sale took place,
(4) fabricated deeds of trust by stealing the identities and notary stamps of at least five different
legitimate notary publics; (5) filed multiple bad faith bankruptcy petitions to stall the foreclosures of
lenders with a true security interest in the properties used for the schemes; (5) manufactured “false
escrow companies” to make it appear as though the loan proceeds were wired to legitimate accounts;
and (6) received monies through these transactions, funneled the fraudulently obtained funds through
shell companies, and used the monies to perpetuate the fraud scheme. Jd. at J] 4-12.

The relevant facts of Prospective Intervenors’ respective cases are complex, as such Prospective
Intervenors offer a very brief summary of their claims. For the Court to further understand the details
of Novastar’s claims against the Novastar Defendants, its Cross-Complaint is attached as Exhibit A.
See Hershorin Dec at { 18. For the Court to further understand the details of WFG’s claims against the
WEG Defendants, its Second Amended Complaint is attached as Exhibit B. See Hershorin Dec at J 19.

A. NOVASTAR V. DADYAN, ET AL.

Novastar v. Dadyan, et al. involves only one of the hundreds of loan fraud crimes linked to
Defendants, wherein Cross-Complainant, Novastar, was the unsuspecting victim of Defendants’
criminal enterprise. Through a series of fraudulent real estate transactions involving the creation of
synthetic identities, false banking information, and multitudes of forged documents, Defendants
induced Novastar to make a six hundred thirty-seven-thousand-dollar ($637,000) loan to a synthetic
person for the purchase of real property located at 4628, 4628 2 and 4630 Kingswell Avenue, Los
Angeles, California (the "Kingswell Property"). Hershorin Dec. at 13.

In April 2017, the California Superior Court for County of Los Angeles — Stanley Mosk

Courthouse granted Novastar leave to file a cross complaint, case number BC597238. Novastar’s cross

3-

WFG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ase 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page9of170 Page ID

#:19971

complaint alleged against the Novastar Defendants” actions for (1) Quiet Title; (2) Fraud; (3)
Conversion; (4) Breach of Escrow Agreement; (5) Escrow Negligence; (6) Breach of Escrow Fiduciary
Duty; (7) Breach of Broker Contract; (8) Broker Negligence; and (9) Breach of Broker Fiduciary Duty
for their fraudulent activities involving the Kingswell Property and for inducing Novastar into making
a loan to the “synthetic buyer” of the Kingswell Property. Exhibit A; Hershorin Dec. at J 13, 18.

B. WEG V. DADYAN, ET AL.

On November 8, 2016, WFG filed a complaint against WFG Defendants? in the California
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, case number BC640157. Exhibit B; Hershorin Dec. at
4 19. On February 11, 2021, WFG filed its second amended complaint against the RICO Defendants
alleging (1) violation of RICO — 18 U.S.C. ; (2) Violation of RICO — 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(C);
(3) Violation of RICO — 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(D); (4) Conversion; (5) Claim and Delivery; (6)
fraud — Intentional Misrepresentation; (7) Conspiracy to Defraud; (8) Professional Negligence; (9)
Breach of Fiduciary Duty; and (10) Breach of Escrow Agreement. Jd.

WFG’s allegations surround RICO Defendants’ fraudulent transactions and activities relating
to four separate properties covering a span of over 10 years.‘ Hershorin Dec. at 4 14. To defraud WFG,
RICO Defendants utilized the same plan and scheme as previously mentioned in each of the four
fraudulent transactions. Jd. at § 11. As a result of this scheme, many of the individuals named in the
complaint are “synthetic persons” created by Defendants in furtherance of their fraudulent enterprise.

The real properties involved in WFG v. Dadyan are the Kingswell Property, 4836 Calhoun
Ave., Sherman Oaks, CA 91423; 2018 North Catalina St., Los Angeles, CA 90027; and 4050 Camino

? The term “Novastar Defendants” shall mean and refer to Defendants Tamara Dadyan aka Tammy Dadyan; Anait Akopyan,
Sogomon Akopyan, Vartan Akopyan aka Vardan Akopyan; Hovanes Yesayan aka Hovhannes Yesayan, an individual dba
Capital Securities; Karapet Emboyan; Epraksi Gevorkian; Konstantine Kabilafkas; K-Astron Ventures dba Konstant
Closings; and Angela Simon.

3 The term “WFG Defendants” shall mean and refer to Defendants Tamara Dadyan; Roza Avakian aka Rose Avakian aka
Rosa Avakian dba Escrow Doc aka Escrow Doc Co.; Anush Ferakhyan; Arthur Abrahamov aka Arthur Abraham dba Escrow
Doc aka Escrow Doc Co.; Adeliya Timirova Investments, Inc.; Adeliya Timirova; Egia Kapemyan; Tetiana Vovk aka
Tatiana Vovk; Secureline Realty and Funding, Inc; Ara Haritunian; Nerses Nakshchyan; Jubilio Escalera; Anait Akopyan;
Vartan Akopyan; Epraksi Gevorkian; Karapet Emboyan; Hovanes Yesayan aka Hovhannes Yesayan; Tandem Mortgage,
Inc.; K-Astron Ventures dba Konstant Closings; Konstantine Kabilakfas; Angela Simon; Alak Mikaelyan; Arthur Ayvazyan
aka Artur Ayazyan (Doe 1); Tony Gleb (Doe 2); Avetis Avetikian aka Avetis Avetikyan aka Avik Avetikyan (Doe 3);
Tatyana Morozov, Trustee of the Vovk 2016 Trust (Doe 4); Violet Hajian aka Manushak Adzhiyan (Doe 5); Julio Cesar
Andia (Doe 6), Vanessa Bell (Doe 7); Steve Abramson (Doe 8); Rita Moskalenko (Doe 9), Romana Cias (Doe 10), and
Samvel Keshishyan (Doe 12).

4 WFG and Novastar Defendants have been linked to over 100 fraudulent real property transactions.
-4-

WFG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

se 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page10o0f170 Page ID
#:19972

De La Cumbre, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423, Id. at § 14. WFG was the title insurer for these properties
and was required to indemnify lenders for their losses, which resulted in $2,169,221.00 in damages
due to WFG Defendant’s fraudulent actions. Id.

WW. FACTUAL ANALYSIS

The sealed documents Prospective Intervenors seek provide valuable evidentiary information to
prove Civil Defendants participated in an elaborate conspiracy to defraud lenders and title insurance
companies, like the within Criminal Case resulting in these Defendants’ convictions. The exhibits
introduced at the trial and attached to the Government’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Suppress
Evidence obtained at Premises 1 and 4, and now sealed by this Court, will prove Defendants stole
personal identifying information; created synthetic identities; forged multiple deeds of trust, purchase
and sale agreements, and employment and banking records; and created shell companies to defraud
Prospective Intervenors; and laundered the proceeds of these loans through various shell companies and
real properties.

Because Prospective Intervenors have no other way of obtaining the documents submitted under
seal in this Court, presented to the jury, and used in the Defendants’ convictions, they respectfully
request this Court to unseal all trial exhibits and exhibits corresponding to Docket Numbers 188 and
207, the Government’s Oppositions to Motion to Suppress evidence collected at Premises-1 and
Pemises-4. Prospective Intervenors agree to adhere to the protective order and will submit any
documents obtained from this Court to the Civil Trial Court under seal. Prospective Interveners have
also included an itemized list of requested documentation set forth in Exhibit C.

IV. ARGUMENT

A. RIGHT OF INTERVENTION

Although the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure are silent as to intervention in criminal
cases, “several federal jurisdictions have held that because the First Amendment implicitly guarantees

the right to access criminal trials, motions to intervene are procedurally proper when the public or press

-5-

WFG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

se 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page1ilof170 Page ID
#:19973

seeks to intervene for the limited purpose of accessing a criminal proceeding or court documents.”
Stephens Media, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dis. Ct., 221 P.3d 1240, 1247 (Nev. 2009) (citing Jn re
Associated Press, 162 F.3d 503, 507 [7" Cir. 1998]; United States v. Brooklier, 685 F.2d 1162, 1168
[9th Cir. 1982]; United States v. Criden, 675 F.2d 550, 559 [3d Cir. 1982]).

While the right to intervene for the limited purpose of accessing court records is typically
exercised by newspaper and media outlets, it is not uncommon for private parties, as members of the
public, to exercise their public right of access. Although private entities, the public right of access
encompasses them as well because private entities are members of the public. See Nixon v. Time Warner
Commce’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978); Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assoc.,
800 F.2d 339 (3d Cir. 1986). In addition to being members of the public, Prospective Intervenors serve
an important public function — lending money to prospective homeowners and issuing title insurance
policies in conjunction with the purchase and sale of real property. Hershorin Dec. at 4 5. Prospective
Intervenors aim is to make the dream of home ownership a reality for members of the public. Jd As
such, the public has a strong interest in seeing those who interfere with that dream brought to justice,
both criminally and civilly. In conjunction with that interest exists the right of public access to
dispositive trial court documents and exhibits used to convict these Defendants. Jd.

Prospective Intervenors, like the Federal Government and United States Taxpayers, are victims
of the same elaborate criminal fraud scheme perpetrated by the Criminal Defendants. Jd. at J 16. As
such, both the criminal action and civil actions share common questions of law and fact. Jd. Criminal
Defendants and their associates commenced their fraudulent scheme to defraud real estate lenders and
title insurance companies over 10 years ago. Jd. at 7 4. Using this same scheme of forging records and
creating synthetic identities, Criminal Defendants graduated from defrauding real estate lenders and title
insurance companies to defrauding the Federal Government out of millions of dollars in PPP loans. Jd.
Much of the evidence obtained and admitted under seal in this case directly relates to Prospective

Intervenors’ civil cases against Defendants because Defendants used, not only the same synthetic
-6-

WFG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page12of170 Page ID

#:19974

identities and shell companies, but executed their fraud using the same plan and scheme. /d. at Ff 3, 4.
Prospective Intervenors seek access to the documents submitted under seal because there is no other
way by which they can gain access to them; as such, Prospective Intervenors are exercising their right
to access public records to ensure Defendants are brought to justice, which will further bolster the
public’s confidence.in the judicial system. Jd. at [§ 3, 6.

As lenders, providers of title insurance, members of the public, and companies who serve an
important public function, Prospective Intervenors have the right to intervene in this Criminal matter to
request access to Judicial Records that they would otherwise be unable to obtain. Thus, Prospective
Intervenors’ motion to intervene is the procedurally proper means of requesting access to sealed judicial
records.

B. RIGHT OF ACCESS

United States courts have long recognized the public has a qualified right to access judicial
proceedings and documents under the First Amendment and the common law and “there is a strong
presumption in favor of the common law right to inspect and copy judicial records.” Phoenix
Newspapers v. United States Dist. Ct., 156 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Nixon, 435 U.S. at
597. Under the common law, this presumption may only be rebutted by a showing of “countervailing
factors,” which outweigh the public interest. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124
(2d Cir. 2006). One seeking to deny First Amendment Access confronts an even heavier burden — to
show that “specific, on the record findings . . . demonstrat[e] that closure is essential to preserve higher
values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S.
1, 13-14 (1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”).

As discussed above, Prospective Intervenors are members of the public who serve an important
public function; thus, there is a strong presumption in favor of providing WFG and Novastar access to
inspect and copy the judicial records under seal in this proceeding. This information will be kept under

seal in the Superior Court; thus, no harm to any Defendant or third-party will result. Hershorin Dec at
-7-

WFG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19975

{ 17. However, if the Court denies this motion, the Prospective Intervenors will suffer enormous
prejudice as they have no other way of obtaining this critical evidence. _In addition, Prospective
Intervenors have a right to access these documents under the First Amendment and applicable common
law as set forth below. Accordingly, Prospective Intervenors respectfully request this court to grant this
motion.

1. FIRST AMENDMENT

The United States Supreme Court formulated a two-prong test, known as the “experience and
logic” test, to determine whether the First Amendment right of access attaches to criminal court records.
Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 8. Courts consider (a) “whether the place and process have historically
been open to the press and general public” and (b) whether the right of access plays a “significant
positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question.” Jd. If these “considerations of
experience and logic” favor disclosure, a qualified First Amendment right of access attaches to the
documents in question. Jd. at 9. However, even if there is no history of public access, a First Amendment
right to access still exists if proceedings would benefit from public scrutiny. In re Copley Press, Inc.,
518 F.3d 1022, 1026 n. 2 (9" Cir. 2008) (stating the two inquiries are “not separate inquiries,” and
“where access has traditionally been granted to the public without serious adverse consequences, logic
necessarily follows. It is only where access has traditionally not been granted that we look to logic. If
logic favors disclosure in such circumstances, it is necessarily dispositive.”)

a. The requested documents have historically been left open to the public.

Grand Jury transcripts and warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation are
the only two categories that have been deemed as traditionally secret documents. Kamakana v. City &
County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). Pretrial documents filed with the court and trial
exhibits are documents traditionally left open to the public. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Such documents and their included exhibits are not protected by

a pre-discovery protective order because “‘once the [protected or sealed discovery] documents are made
-8-

WFG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
Ca

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Be 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page14of170 Page ID

#:19976

part of a dispositive motion . . . they lose their status of being raw fruits of discovery,’ and no longer
enjoy protected status ‘without some overriding interest in favor of keeping the discovery documents
under seal.’” Jd. at 1136. (quoting Rushford v. The New Yorker Magazine, 846 F.2d 249, 252 [4th Cir.
1988]). In fact, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held “the presumption of access is not rebutted where
... documents subject to a protective order are filed under seal as attachments to a dispositive motion.”
Id.

The documents Prospective Intervenors seek fall squarely into categories the federal courts have
acknowledged a right of access: Trial Exhibits and Exhibits attached to discovery-related motions.
Hershorin Dec. at § 4. Because the exhibits sought by Prospective Intervenors were filed with the court
in dispositive motions or admitted into evidence at trial, this Court cannot keep these documents under
seal without an overriding interest that meets the requisite Constitutional test.

b. Logic favors disclosure of the requested documents.

Lack of a tradition of access in a criminal trial to a document does not alone justify sealing.
Globe Newspaper Co v. Sup. Ct., 457 U.S. 596, 605 n. 13 (1982). The court must consider whether, in
the context of a modern justice system, public access serves society’s interest because “the first
amendment is to be interpreted in light of current values and conditions,” as such, a right of access may
attach even if those records were not traditionally left open. Brooklier, 685 F.2d at 1170. Disclosure of
sealed documents is appropriate when public access would act as a “curb on prosecutorial or judicial
misconduct and would further the public’s interest in understanding the criminal justice system.” Jn re
Washington Post, 807 F.2d 383, 389 (4th Cir. 1986) (citing Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 8).

WFG and Novastar are victims of Defendants’ criminal enterprise who seek civil redress for the
injuries inflicted upon them by Defendants and their criminal enterprise. Much of the evidence used to
support Prospective Intervenors’ civil claims is now unavailable because of this Court’s protective order
and orders to seal numerous exhibits. Hershorin Dec. at { 3. In our modern justice system, Prospective

Intervenors’ access to the sealed documents serves society’s interest because society has a strong
-9-

WFG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19977

interest in seeing that fraud victims are made whole. Jd. at § 6. It would be an injustice to fraud victims
if criminal courts were to hold valuable evidence hostage such that actual victims of fraud could not
prove their civil case. Jd.

Moreover, the public has a strong interest in seeing that Prospective Intervenors are able to
produce as much relevant evidence as possible against Defendants because the activities of fraudsters
like the Defendants have a direct impact on the public’s future acquisition of home loans and title
insurance policies. Jd. An unfortunate consequence of Defendants’ actions is lenders and insurance
companies are placed at a greater risk; the cost of which will eventually be placed onto the innocent
consumer if lending and insurance companies are not able to obtain judgments against those who
defrauded them. Jd. The evidence under seal will help Prospective Intervenors prove their cases at their
respective civil trials. Jd. Such judgments will act as a deterrent against fraudulent activities and reduce
the risk to lenders and insurers when entering into real estate related contracts. Jd.

Because real estate fraud has become more prevalent in today’s society and the sealed records
on file with this court will provide much needed evidence to support Prospective Intervenors’ claims
against Defendants in their respective civil cases, logic favors disclosure. Moreover, logic favors
disclosure because civil judgments coupled with criminal judgments act as a further deterrence against
fraudulent activity.

Thus, Prospective Intervenors have met their burden under the First amendment and Prospective
Intervenors have a qualified right to access the records under seal in Criminal Defendants case.

c. WEG will submit any unsealed exhibits to the Superior Court of California
under seal.

Once the party seeking disclosure has met its burden, the burden shifts to the party supporting
nondisclosure to show that a “compelling governmental interest” supports nondisclosure and
nondisclosure is “narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 10. The party
who seeks to maintain sealed records must show “(1) closure served a compelling interest; (2) there is

-10-

WFG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19978

a substantial probability that, in the absence of closure, this compelling interest would be harmed; and
(3) there are no alternatives to closure that would adequately protect the compelling interest.” Phoenix
Newspapers, Inc., 156 F.3d at 949. For a sealing order to survive, the court must make specific, on- the-
record findings that satisfy the test for closure and the record must reflect those findings. Jd. at 13-15.

WEG is uncertain on what the basis the requested documents were sealed as each Application
for Order Sealing Documents is also sealed in this Court’s record. Hershorin Dec. at § 3. However,
even upon a showing of a compelling interest that could be harmed, the parties seeking nondisclosure
will not be able to prove that there are no alternatives to closure that would protect the compelling
interest.

In Beckman Industries, Incorporated v. International Insurance Company, Intervenors sought
access to sealed court records for use in concurrent litigation against the Defendant, who was a party to
both actions. 966 F.2d 470, 471-72 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court ruled in favor of the intervenors
on the “grounds of the importance of access to the documents, a lack of prejudice to [Defendant] and
the absence of extraordinary circumstances militating against intervention and modification [of the
protective order].” Jd. at 475. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling and reasoned that
the orders were “subject to modification to meet the reasonable needs of other parties in other litigation.”
Id. (quoting Olympic Refining Company v. Carter, 332 F.2d 260, 264-65 [9th Cir. 1964]). The Court
further held because trials ordinarily take place in public and the purpose of discovery is to force full
disclosure, Intervenor was entitled to modification of the protective order, “subject to reasonable
restrictions on disclosure.” Jd. The Court granted Intervenor access to the sealed documents, but “put
the intervenors under the same restrictions as those contained in the original protective order” to
preserve privacy interests. Id.

Similarly, in Foltz, the Intervenor sought access to a motion for summary judgment, its exhibits,
and other records on file with the court for use in concurrent litigation against Defendant. 331 F.3d at

1136. Defendant argued against disclosure because the requested materials contained confidential

WEG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
C

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19979

financial information, third-party medical records, personnel files, and trade secrets, which the district
court deemed compelling reasons to maintain the seal on the summary judgment motions and supporting
exhibits. Jd. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that redacting non-relevant, injurious information “would
not injure third parties but would reveal only [Defendant’s] actions . . . This disclosure might harm
[Defendant] by exposing it to additional liability and litigation . . . but a litigant is not entitled to the
court’s protection from this type of harm.” Jd. at 1137.

Like the Prospective Intervenors in Beckman and Foltz, Prospective Intervenors agree to be
placed under the same restrictions as those contained in the original protective order. Hershorin Dec. 4
17. In addition, WFG and Novastar agree that any documents obtained in this matter, which are
submitted into evidence in their respective civil cases will be submitted under seal. Jd. By adhering to
such restrictions, the privacy of any third parties will remain protected. Jd. Prospective Intervenors
recognize there might be personal identifying information of third parties and banking records, which
are documents typically subject to redaction in order to preserve the privacy interest of third parties and
Defendants. However, the privacy interest of third parties and defendants will be protected by
Prospective Intervenors’ agreement to abide by this courts protective order and by submitting the
documents under seal in their civil actions. Jd. Moreover, WFG and Novastar’s respective cases are
bench trials; thus, there is no risk of displaying any private information to the general public as a jury
will not be present.

Because Prospective Intervenors agree to adhere to this courts protective order and agree to
submit any documents to the civil court under seal, Prospective Intervenors have demonstrated that
there is an alternative to a complete seal on the requested document that will preserve the privacy
interests of Defendants and third parties.

Thus, this Court should grant Prospective Intervenors’ motion to access judicial records for use

in their civil trials.

-12-

WFG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

a

#:19980

2. COMMON LAW

Although similar to the First Amendment right of access, the common law right to access “‘is
separate and distinct from rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.” Valley Broadcasting Co. v.
United States Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289,1293-94 (9th Cir. 1986). The common law right to access attaches
even when the court does not find a constitutional right of access. United States v. Schlette, 842 F.2d
1574, 1582-83 (9" Cir. 1988).

Prospective Intervenors have a legitimate interest in accessing the sealed records because there
is no other way that WFG and Novastar can gain access to them. Hershorin Dec. at 3. Prospective
Intervenors diligently attempted to acquire the sealed documents and information contained in the
sealed record using discovery methods in the civil cases, but civil defendants failed to respond to such
requests or claimed they could not locate the requested documents. Id.

Moreover, as discussed above, Prospective Intervenors are members of the public with a right
to access court records. In addition, the records Prospective Intervenors seek access to are quintessential
elements of the justice system — exhibits used in trial and pretrial motions — and providing Prospective
Intervenors with access to the requested documents promotes a public understanding of the judicial
process and a policy of ensuring victims of fraud are made whole. Providing Prospective Intervenors
access to the sealed documents promotes the public’s interest in both the criminal process and the civil
process because it is the only way in which WGF and Novastar can ensure they and the public are
provided with the full benefits of civil court proceedings. In addition, Defendants were convicted of a
multimillion-dollar fraud scheme against the government, unsealing Defendant’s records will allow the
public to keep an eye on the workings of the government and to see where their tax dollars are flowing.

WFG and Novastar acknowledge that many of the sealed exhibits may contain personal
identifying information of third parties, which is information typically kept under seal; however, many
of these third parties are synthetic entities created by the Defendants in perpetration of their fraudulent

scheme. Jd. at Jf 12, 16. However, as discussed above, WFG and Novastar agree to adhere to reasonable

-13-

WFG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

se 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page19o0f170 Page ID
#:19981

restrictions on disclosure and agree to use the acquired information in accordance with protective orders
in their state civil actions. Jd. at 16.

Thus, because WFG and Novastar have a common law right to access the sealed exhibits, the
Court should grant them access to the requested exhibits for use in their respective civil cases with a
further order that use of such documents be admitted in the civil court under seal.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Prospective Intervenors hereby request this Court to issue an
order allowing it to intervene in the above-captioned matter for the limited purpose of requesting the
Court to unseal documents, including pleadings with Exhibits and admitted Trial Exhibits used for the
convictions of Tamara Dadyan and Arthur Ayvazyan filed and, in some cases, introduced in open court
in connection with this criminal action. Prospective Intervenors further request this Court issue an order
unsealing all trial exhibits and the exhibits contained in the Government’s Opposition to Motions to
Suppress- Docket numbers 188 and 207, or in the alternative, an order unsealing all exhibits named in
Exhibit C with a confidentiality order and/or order redacting confidential information in the interests of

fairness and Justice.

DATED: April 27, 2022 HERSHORIN & HENRY, LLP

LORI C. HERSHORIN

Attorney for Prospective Intervenors

WFG TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY and
NOVASTAR, LLC

WFG AND NOVASTAR’S JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCESS JUDICIAL RECORDS
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1303

COPY

ao nN DB WA BR W WwW

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19983

LORI C. HERSHORIN, ESQ. (SBN 155977)
JEAN C. WILCOX, ESQ. (SBN 97963)
CLAUDIA MOURAD, ESQ. (SBN 211139)
HERSHORIN & HENRY, LLP

26475 Rancho Parkway South

Lake Forest, California 92630

T: (949) 859-5600 ¢ F: (949) 859-5680

Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Defendant and Cross-

Filed 04/29/22

Page 21 0f170 Page ID

CONFORMED COPY
Los Angeles Superior Conf MED rigs

APR 03 2017 . ;

Sherrl R. Carter, Executive Officer/clerk
By Shaunya Bolden, Deputy

Complainant, NOVASTAR, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE

ANAIT AKOPYAN, SOGOMON AKOPYAN,
and VARTAN AKOPYAN,

Plaintiffs,

VS.

HOVANES YESAYAN aka HOVHANNES
YESAYAN; EPRAKSI GEVORKIAN;
KARAPET EMBOYAN; NOVASTAR, LLC;
SBS TRUST DEED NETWORK; DEUTSCHE
BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS
TRUSTEE FOR HARBORVIEW MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE LOAN PASS
THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-9;
RECONTRUST COMPANY; BANK OF NEW
YORK MELON; LA COSTA LOANS
HOLDINGS, LLC and DOES 1-100, Inclusive,

Defendants,

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR
HARBORVIEW MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST
MORTGAGE LOAN PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-9,

Cross-Complainant,

CASE NO.: BC597238

Hon, Judge Yvette M. Palazuelos
Dept. 28

CROSS-COMPLAINT BY NOVASTAR,
LLC FOR:

1) QUIET TITLE

2) FRAUD

3) CONVERSION

4) BREACH OF ESCROW CONTRACT

5) ESCROW NEGLIGENCE

6) BREACH OF ESCROW FIDUCIARY
DUTY

7) BREACH OF BROKER CONTRACT

8) BROKER NEGLIGENCE

9) BREACH OF BROKER FIDUCIARY
DUTY

10) NEGLIGENCE OF NOTARY PUBLIC

October 9, 2015
February 5, 2018

Action Filed:
Trial Date:

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF NOVASTAR, LLC
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1303

Filed 04/29/22

#:19984

1|| vs.

VARTAN AKOPYAN; EPRAKSI
GEVORKIAN; KARAPET EMBOYAN;

inclusive
10
Cross-Defendants.

ANAIT AKOPYAN; SOGOMON AKOPYAN;

HOVANES YESAYAN a/k/a HOVHANNES
YESAYAN d/b/a CAPITAL SECURITIES;
CAPITAL SECURITIES LLC d/b/a CAPITAL
SECURITIES; FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC.;
LA COSTA LOANS, INC.; LA COSTA LOANS
HOLDINGS, LLC; LENDING WEST, INC.;
NOVASTAR LLC; S.B.8, TRUST DEED
NETWORK; All persons unknown, claiming any
legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or
interest in the subject property adverse to Cross-
Complainant’s title, or any cloud on Cross
Complainant’s title thereto; and DOES 1-30,

13 company,

14 Cross-Complainant,

15]|| vs.

16|| ANAIT AKOPYAN, an Individual;
SOGOMON AKOPYAN, an Individual;

171] VARTAN AKOPYAN also known as VARDAN

13|| AKOPYAN, an Individual;
19|| COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR

201] MORTGAGE LOAN PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES SERIES 2006-9;

21 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., a New

29|| York Corporation;

23 || unknown form;

LENDING WEST, INC., a California
241| Corporation;

ANGELICA A. ORTIZ, an Individual;

25|\ GAPITAL SECURITIES LLC dba CAPITAL
76{| SECURITIES, an entity of unknown form;
HOVANES YESAYAN aka HOVHANNES

27|| YESAYAN, an Individual dba CAPITAL
SECURITIES;

281] TRACEY A. DOMINIQUE, an Individual;

12| NOVASTAR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

HARBORVIEW MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST

APEX EQUITY HOLDINGS, an entity of

2-

Page 22 of 170 Page ID
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page 230f170 PageID

oO &o& N NHN WN” FA

10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19985

C. M. FRAZIER, an Individual;

EPRAKSI GEVORKIAN, an Individual;

VICKI LE MERE, an Individual;

DEBORAH ARTEAGA, an Individual,
KARAPET EMBOYAN, an Individual;

STACY A. LIM, an Individual;

LBC CAPITAL INCOME FUND, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company;

LENDING BEE, INC. dba LBC REALTY, a
California Corporation;

BORIS DORFMAN, an Individual;

VLADIMIR ISPEROV, an Individual;
KONSTANTIN TENIN aka KEVIN TENIN, an
Individual;

K-ASTRON VENTURES INC. dba KONSTANT
CLOSINGS, a California Corporation;
KONSTANTINE KABILAFKAS, an Individual;
ANGELA SIMON, an Individual;

TAMARA DADYAN aka TAMMY DADYAN,
an Individual;

ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY
LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE,
ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY ADVERSE TO CROSS-
COMPLAINANT’S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD
ON CROSS COMPLAINANT’S TITLE
THERETO; and

ROES 1 through 150, inclusive,

Cross-Defendants.

Cross-complainant, NOVASTAR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, hereby alleges

as follows:

BACKGROUND TO CROSS-COMPLAINT

1. NOVASTAR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Novastar”), is organized

and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Novastat is authorized to and doing business in

the State of California.

2. Novastar brings this cross-complaint seeking to quiet its title to the residential real

property that is commonly known as 4628 Kingswell Avenue, Los Angeles, California (“Property”).

-3-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page 24of170 PageID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19986

Novastar alleges that it holds title to the Property following its foreclosure upon a deed of trust,
recorded as Instrument No. 20131778694 (“Novastar Deed of Trust”), recorded December 18, 2013,
which trustee’s sale was held on February 29, 2016.1 At said trustee’s sale, Novastar was the
successful bidder, having credit bid the sum of $909.977.25. The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale that
transferred the Property’s title to Novastar was recorded on March 17, 2016 as Instrument
No. 20160292135. In the alternative, Novastar brings this cross-complaint seeking tort and contract
based damages against the cross-defendants, as hereafter alleged.

3, Novastar alleges, inter alia, that it holds title to the Property free and clear of all other
adverse liens or claims of interest by the Cross-Defendants named herein. Novastar seeks, in the first
instance, a judgment quieting title to the Property in its name alone, as of March 17, 2016, Novastar
seeks, in the alternative, monetary damages including punitive and exemplary damages against certain
of the Cross-Defendants, as alleged herein.

4. This action was initially filed in the above-captioned court, entitled Akopyan vy.
Yesayan, Case No. BC597238 (“Akopyan Lawsuit”). In the Akopyan Lawsuit the plaintiffs are
seeking to cancel and quiet title in their favor and against Novastar and the Novastar Deed of Trust.
Also in the Akopyan Lawsuit, a cross-complaint was filed by defendant, DEUTSCHE BANK
NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (“Deutsche Bank”), Trustee, seeking to cancel and challenge the
title Novastar now claims to hold on the Property. The Akopyan Lawsuit plaintiffs and Deutsche Bank
allege that the deed of trust held by Deutsche Bank against the Property is valid, existing and senior
to the Novastar Deed of Trust and to the Property’s title that Novastar now holds.

PARTIES

5. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant ANAIT
AKOPYAN (“Anait”) at all relevant times herein was an individual residing in Los Angeles County,
California and within this judicial district.

1 All of the Instruments alleged in this cross-complaint by their Instrument No. were recorded in the

Official Records of Los Angeles County, State of California.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page25of170 PageID

sa NH W” FP WD Pp

10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19987

6. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant
SOGOMON AKOPYAN (“Sogomon”) at all relevant times herein was an individual residing in Los
Angeles County, California and within this judicial district.

7. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant VARTAN
AKOPYAN also known as VARDAN AKOPYAN (“Vartan”) at all relevant times herein was an
individual residing in Los Angeles County, California and within this judicial district.

8. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR HARBORVIEW
MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE LOAN PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES
2006-9, (“Deutsche Bank”) at all relevant times herein was an entity doing business in Los Angeles
County, California and within this judicial district.

9. Novastar is informed and believes. and thereon alleges that cross-defendant
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. (“Countrywide”) at all relevant times herein was a New
York Corporation doing business in Los Angeles County, California and within this judicial district.

10. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant APEX
EQUITY HOLDINGS (“Apex”) at all relevant times herein was a business entity of unknown form
doing business in Los Angeles County, California and within this judicial district.

11. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant LENDING
WEST, INC. (“Lending West”) at all relevant times herein was a California Corporation doing
business in Los Angeles County, California and within this judicial district.

12. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant
ANGELICA A. ORTIZ (“Ortiz”) at all relevant times herein was an individual conducting business
in Los Angeles County, California as a notary public licensed by the State of California, and holding
Commission No. 1910648.

13. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant CAPITAL
SECURITIES LLC dba CAPITAL SECURITIES (“Capital Securities”) at all relevant times herein
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19988

was an entity of unknown form doing business in Los Angeles County, California and within this
judicial district. ;

14. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant HOVANES
YESAYAN aka HOVHANNES YESAYAN (“Yesayan”) at all relevant times herein was an
individual residing in and doing business under the fictitious business name of Capital Securities
and/or Capital Securities, LLC in Los Angeles County, California and within this judicial district.

15. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant TRACEY
A. DOMINIQUE (“Dominique”) at all relevant times herein was an individual residing in Los
Angeles County, California and within this judicial district. NOVASTAR is informed and believes
and thereon alleges that Dominique is a notary public licensed by the State of California, and holding
Commission No. 1859149.

16. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant C. M.
FRAZIER (“Frazier”) at all relevant times herein was an individual conducting business in Los

Angeles County, California as a notary public licensed by the State of California, and holding

Commission No. 1840019.
17. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant EPRAKSI

GEVORKIAN (“Gevorkian”) at all relevant times herein was an individual residing in Los Angeles
County, California and within this judicial district.

18. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant KARAPET
EMBOYAN (“Emboyan”) at all relevant times herein was an individual residing in Los Angeles
County, California and within this judicial district.

19. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant VICKI LE
MERE (“Le Mere”) at all relevant times herein was an individual conducting business in Los Angeles

County, California as a notary public licensed by the State of California, and holding Commission

No. 1903229.
20. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant DEBORAH

ARTEAGA (“Arteaga”) at all relevant times herein was an individual conducting business in Los

-6-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page27of170 PageID

BB

10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19989

Angeles County, California as a notary public licensed by the State of California, and holding
Commission No. 1907596,

21. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant KARAPET
EMBOYAN (“Emboyan”) at all relevant times herein was an individual residing in Los Angeles
County, California and within this judicial district.

22. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant STACY A.
LIM (“Lim”) at all relevant times herein was an individual conducting business in Los Angeles
County, California as a notary public licensed by the State of California, and holding Commission
No. 20062214.

23. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant LBC
CAPITAL INCOME FUND, LLC (“LBC Capital”) at all relevant times herein was a California
Limited Liability Company doing business in Los Angeles County, California and within this judicial
district.

24. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant LENDING
BEE, INC. (“Lending Bee”) does business as LBC Realty, and at all relevant times herein was a
California Corporation doing business in Los Angeles County, California and within this judicial
district. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Lending Bee is the managing
member of LBC Capital and that Lending Bee holds a Corporation License from the California Bureau
of Real Estate (License # 01445206).

25. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant BORIS
DORFMAN (“Dorfman”) at all relevant times herein was an individual residing in Los Angeles
County, California and within this judicial district; was the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Lending Bee; and holds a Broker License with the California Bureau of Real Estate (License #
01330338),

26. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant

VLADIMIR ISPEROV (“Isperov”) at all relevant times herein was an individual residing in Los

-7-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page 28o0f170 PageID

#:19990

Angeles County, California and within this judicial district; Isperov was the sole owner of Lending
Bee and holds a Salesperson License with the California Bureau of Real Estate (License # 01435954),

27. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant
KONSTANTIN TENIN aka KEVIN TENIN (“Tenin”) at all relevant times herein was an individual
residing in Los Angeles County, California and within this judicial district; Tenin was a Senior
Regional Manager of Lending Bee and holds a Salesperson License with the California Bureau of Real
Estate (License # 01932122).

28. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant TAMARA
DADYAN aka TAMMY DADYAN (“Dadyan”) at all relevant times herein was an individual
residing in Los Angeles County, California and within this judicial district. At the time of the events
herein alleged, ptior to December 18, 2013, Dadyan held a Salesperson License with the California
Bureau of Real Estate (License # 01294823) that was hung under Secureline Realty and Funding, Inc.,
a California corporation. Dadyan’s license is now suspended.

29. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant K-
ASTRON VENTURES INC, dba Konstant Closings (“Konstant Closings”), at all relevant times
herein was a California Corporation doing business in Los Angeles County, California and within this
judicial district, and held a Corporation License with the California Bureau of Real Estate (License #
01391181). Konstant Closings is also licensed as an escrow agent by the California Department of
Corporations (License # 01391181).

30. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant
KONSTANTINE KABILAFKAS (“Kabilafkas”) at all relevant times herein was an individual
residing in Los Angeles County, California and within this judicial district, and holds a Broker License
with the California Bureau of Real Estate (License # 01176858). Kabilafkas is the designated licensed
officer for Konstant Closings, and is a licensed officer for Secureline Realty and Funding, Inc., with
which Dadyan was affiliated.

31. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant ANGELA

SIMON (“Simon”) at all relevant times herein was an individual residing in Los Angeles County,

-8-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page 29of170 PageID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19991

California and within this judicial district.

32. | Novastar is informed and believes and based thereon alleges, that each of the cross-
defendants sued herein as ROES 1 through 50 claim some right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the
Property that is adverse to Novastar’s title.

33. Novastar is unaware of the true names and capacities of cross-defendants sued herein
as ROES 51 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues these cross-defendants by such fictitious names.
Novastar will amend this cross-complaint to show the true names and capacities of these fictitiously
named cross-defendants when the same have been ascertained or upon proof at trial. Novastar is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the fictitiously named cross-defendants is
legally responsible for the events and damages alleged in the cross-complaint and/or jointly and
severally liable for the debts and obligations of some or all of the other cross-defendants.

34. Novastar is informed and believes and based thereon alleges, that each of the cross-
defendants sued herein as ROES 101 through 150, inclusive, are, and at all times mentioned herein
have been, the agents, principals, partners, co-conspirators, aiders and abettors, and/or co-venturers of
each other, that each of them acted within the course, scope and authority of said relationships and
conspiracy, and that as a result, ROES 1 through 150, inclusive, are jointly and severally liable for the
acts and omissions alleged herein.

VENUE

35. The Property that is the subject of this action is certain improved residential real
property commonly known as 4628 Kingswell Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90027. Sometimes
the Property is also referred to as 4628, 4628-1/2 and 4630 Kingswell Avenue, Los Angeles,

California. The Property is legally described as follows:

LOT 7 IN BLOCK "C" OF EDGEMONT TERRACE, IN THE CITY
OF LOS ANGELES, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 3, PAGE 90 OF
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID

COUNTY.
APN: 5590-026-007

-9-
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19992

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

36. This action arises out of a series of real estate sales, foreclosures, and loan transactions
that commenced in or about November of 2011, all of which involved the Property. Ultimately, in
December of 2013, Novastar, as the last in a chain of lenders, was induced to make a $637,500
purchase money loan to its borrower, Emboyan, that was secured by what it believed was a first lien
deed of trust against the Property. The chain of title on the Property reflects that Emboyan purchased
the Property from Gevorkian, an individual who previously purchased the Property from Capital
Securities, and that Capital Securities purchased the Property at a foreclosure sale held under the
Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust on August 17, 2012.

37, The Plaintiffs in the Akopyan Lawsuit allege that they hold title to the Property, subject
only to a $774,000 first lien deed of trust currently held by Cross-Complainant, Deutsche Bank; and a
$240,000 second lien deed of trust that is currently held by Bank of New York Melon. Anait,
Sogomon, Vartan, and Deutsche Bank all alleged in their pleadings that no bonafide trustee’s
foreclosure sale was ever held under the Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust and, consequently, that the title
ultimately received by Emboyan and the Novastar Deed of Trust and later title are all void. Novastar
disputes this in its verified Answers.

38. In the event Novastar is not successful on its claims to the Property, then Novastar
alleges in the alternative, that it should receive a judgment in damages against the cross-defendants

herein below identified, on the causes of action alleged herein.

AKOPYAN PARTIES’ ACQUISITION AND LOANS AGAINST PROPERTY

39. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Anait purchased the
Property on or about March 4, 2003. In connection with that purchase, Anait obtained a loan from
Washington Mutual Bank (“WAMU”) in the amount of $432,000 secured by a first lien deed of trust.

40. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in December of 2003, Anait
obtained a $225,000 Home Equity Line of Credit ““HELOC’) from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
(“Countrywide”), secured by a second lien deed of trust against the Property.

-10-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page 31of170 PageID

Ke)

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19993

41, Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in July 2005, Anait
refinanced WAMU and Countrywide loans with a new first lien loan from Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc. in the amount of $665,000, and a new second lien HELOC in the amount of $95,000.

42. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in August 2006, Anait
refinanced the Property yet again, and obtained a new $774,000 first lien loan from Countrywide and
a new second lien deed of trust also in favor of Countrywide, to secure a HELOC in the amount of
$240,000. The two Countrywide deeds of trust were recorded on August 31, 2006 as Instrument Nos.
061946828 and 061946829.

43. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in the short amount of time
since purchasing the property in March 2003, that by July of 2005 Anait had effectively taken out
approximately $328,000 in equity using the Property as collateral; and, that by August 2006 the
Property was encumbered by loans totaling $1,014,000.

44, Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that thereafter in 2006,
Countrywide transferred its interest in the first lien deed of trust into a securitized pool of loans over
which Deutsche Bank was the then acting trustee (the “Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust”). Novastar is
further informed and believes that Plaintiff alleges that thereafter, the second lien deed of trust was
transferred by Countrywide to the Bank of New York Mellon.

ANAIT’S DEFAULT AND FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE
DEUTSCHE BANK DEED OF TRUST

45. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that pursuant to the fraud scheme
more fully alleged below, and beginning in or about November, 2011, three Trustee’s Deeds Upon
Sale were fraudulently recorded against the Property as part of a scheme to launder title to the Property
and give the illusion in the public record that the Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust had been foreclosed
upon and that a third party entity had purchased the Property at the foreclosure sale.

46. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Anait subsequently

defaulted on the Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust in or about December of 2010.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page 32o0f170 PageID

I DH WA BR WwW bw

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19994

47, ReconTrust, as the trustee under the Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust, thereupon
commenced a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding against the Property by recording a Notice of Default
and Election to Sell on December 29, 2010, as Instrument No. 20101927762.

48. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about January 5, 2011,
a Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded as Instrument No, 20110021377. The
assignment states that the beneficial interest in the Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust had been assigned to
BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP.

49, Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in and around March of
2011, Anait managed to obtain yet another loan, even though the Property was already in foreclosure,
that was secured by a third lien deed of trust against the Property, in the amount of $15,000. Apex is
the beneficiary reflected on this third lien deed of trust that was recorded on March 1, 2011 as
Instrument No. 20110315667 (“Apex Deed of Trust”). Novastar is informed and believes and on that
basis alleges that this loan represented payment to Anait and/or Sogomon and/or Vartan for their
willingness to participate in a fraudulent foreclosure avoidance scheme that was offered to them by
the other cross-defendants identified below.

50. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about October 13,
2011, ReconTrust as the Trustee handling the foreclosure sale on the first lien Deutsche Bank Deed of
Trust, caused to be published and recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale as Instrument No. 20111386524,
thereby scheduling a trustee’s sale of the Property for November 2, 2011.

51. Prior to that scheduled foreclosure sale, and in furtherance of the fraudulent foreclosure
avoidance scheme described herein, Anait transferred title to the Property to herself, her husband
Sogomon, and her son, Vartan. That Grant Deed was recorded on October 17, 2011 as Instrument
No. 20111403579. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that this transfer of title by
Anait was in furtherance of the fraudulent foreclosure avoidance scheme and so as to prepare for the
use of any of a variety of devices delinquent borrowers began using during this time period, including,
without limitation, the filing of a series of individual bankruptcies to delay the foreclosure process.

52. Also, at and around this same time period, Novastar is informed and believes and on

-12-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page 33o0f170 PageID

SI NH WA FBP W BW

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19995

that basis alleges, that similar foreclosure avoidance related documents were being recorded in
connection with another real property that Anait also owned that is commonly known 2018 N. Catalina
St., Los Angeles (“Catalina Property”). Due to the similarity in recorded documentation and the
overlap in parties, notaries, and related entities between the Property involved in this action, and the
Catalina Property, Novastar is informed and believes that Anait, Sogomon and Vartan were willing
and knowing participants in the fraud scheme alleged herein.

CHURNING THE PROPERTY’S TITLE DURING THE PENDING FORECLOSURE

53. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about March 29, 2012,
a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale, that was executed on November 21, 2011, was purportedly recorded by
ReconTrust as Instrument No. 20120482852 (“First TDUS”). The First TDUS states that the Property
had been purchased at the Trustee’s November 2, 2011 foreclosure sale by Lending West, for a cash
bid of $580,000. The First TDUS was purportedly signed by an Assistant Vice President of
ReconTrust and was notarized by Ortiz. Due to similarities in the signatures of the Assistant Vice
President and Ortiz, Novastar is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that both signatures
were made by the same individual.

54. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some months later, on or
about June 22, 2012, ReconTrust recorded a Notice of Rescission of Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale dated
June 19, 2012 as Instrument No. 20120929859, purporting to rescind the First TDUS by claiming it
was “recorded in error,” The Notice of Rescission of the First TDUS is purportedly notarized by Ortiz
just as was the First TDUS. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Notice of
Rescission was created, executed and recorded by the same individuals and/or entities that were
responsible for the creation, execution and recordation of the First TDUS and that for some unknown
reason, those individuals wanted to place the Property’s title into the name of Capital Securities instead
of the name of Lending West. |

55. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that several months later, on or
about September 20, 2012 a second Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale executed on September 15, 2012 was
purportedly recorded by ReconTrust as Instrument No. 20121417127 (‘Second TDUS”). The Second

~13-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page 34o0f170 Page ID

#:19996

TDUS was purportedly executed by an Assistant Vice President of ReconTrust, and notarized by
Dominique. Many of the same unique font styles, typos, and general lay-out of the First TDUS appear
in the Second TDUS. The Second TDUS states that Capital Securities purchased the Property at a
foreclosure sale held on August 17, 2012 with a cash bid of $580,000 (same cash bid amount as stated
in the First TDUS). Following the recordation of the Second TDUS, no rescission of the Second
TDUS was recorded prior to Novastar’s loan to Emboyan.

56. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about November 19,
2012, ReconTrust published a second Notice of Trustee’s Sale and recorded same as Instrument
No. 20121753911, thereby re-scheduling a trustee’s sale under the Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust on
the Property for December 13, 2012. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
ReconTrust should have known by this time of the First TDUS and Second TDUS as said instruments
would have been reflected in a property date-down that foreclosure trustees ordinarily obtain prior to
re-noticing a Trustee’s Sale.

57. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about December 28,
2012, another Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale, executed on December 20, 2012 was purportedly recorded
by ReconTrust as Instrument No. 20122018962 (“Third TDUS”). The Third TDUS was purportedly
signed by an Assistant Vice President of ReconTrust, and was notarized by Frazier. The Third TDUS,
like the Second TDUS, purports to convey title to the Property to Capital Securities in exchange for a
cash bid of $580,000 at a foreclosure sale that allegedly took place on August 17, 2012. The Third
TDUS contains the same unique font type, reflects the same typos, and general lay-out as do the First
TDUS and Second TDUS; and, for that reason, Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges,
that all three TDUS instruments were created, executed and recorded by the same individuals and/or

entities and all for the purpose of furthering the foreclosure avoidance scheme to which Anait,

Sogomon and Vartan had agreed and consented.
58. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Anait, Sogomon, Vartan

and Deutsche Bank all dispute that a trustee’s sale of the Property took place on August 17, 2012, and
further dispute that ReconTrust executed, or was authorized to execute, the Second TDUS and Third

-14.
Oo SF ny DB

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19997

TDUS that purported to transfer the Property’s title to Capital Securities. Novastar denies and disputes
these claims, as alleged in its Verified Answers in this action; and Novastar alleges that Anait,
Sogomon, Vartan and Deutsche Bank knew or should have known about the Second TDUS and Third
TDUS being recorded against the Property, that a bonafide foreclosure sale was held by ReconTrust
on August 17, 2012 by which Deutsche Bank foreclosed on its senior lien and foreclosed out all junior
liens, and that Capital Securities purchased the Property at the foreclosure sale.

59. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on December 18, 2012, a
Grant Deed was executed by Yesayan, as the CEO/Secretary of Capital Securities, purporting to
transfer title to the Property to Gevorkian. Yesayan’s signature on the Grant Deed was notarized by
Le Mere. The Grant Deed was then recorded on January 23, 2013 as Instrument No. 20130109934.
Prior to the Grant Deed’s recordation, and ostensibly to complete Gevorkian’s purchase of the Property
from Capital Securities, a Deed of Trust was executed by Gevorkian in favor of La Costa Loans, Inc.,
a California corporation, as beneficiary, in the amount of $520,000 and the Deed of Trust was recorded
on January 23, 2013 as Instrument No. 20130109935.

60. _Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Deutsche Bank knew or
should have known of the recordation of the Third TDUS and the transfer of title to Gevorkian and
the new Deed of Trust that were recorded against the Property in January of 2013, yet Deutsche Bank
failed to take any steps to correct its version of the Property’s record title until months after Novastar
made a purchase money loan to Emboyan.

61. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about August 12, 2013,
a Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded as Instrument No. 20131222821, pursuant |
to which the beneficial interest in the Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust was assigned from BAC Home
Loans Servicing, LP fka Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP back to Deutsche Bank.

62. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that unbeknownst to Novastar,
on November 12, 2013, Deutsche Bank filed a complaint to quiet title to the Property in Los Angeles
County Superior Court, Case No. BC527308 (“Deutsche Bank Quiet Title Action”). Novastar is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that Deutsche Bank alleged in the Deutsche Bank Quiet

-15-
So CF YN DB WH BP WH HO we

MN YN NY NY NW

#:19998

Title Action that the Second TDUS and Third TDUS were void, and that Gevorkian was not the lawful
owner of the Property.

63. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Deutsche Bank did not
immediately record a Notice of Lis Pendens when it filed the Deutsche Bank Quiet Title Action. Had
it done so, then Novastar would have received actual or constructive notice of Deutsche Bank’s claims
and Novastar would not have agreed to finance Emboyan’s purchase of the Property from Gevorkian.
Instead, Deutsche Bank unreasonably delayed and waited six months to record a Notice of Lis
Pendens on April 3, 2014. By the time the Notice of Lis Pendens was recorded, Novastar had already
made the loan to Emboyan, as hereafter described, and Novastar believed it was holding a first lien
deed of trust against the Property.

64. The Deutsche Bank Quiet Title Action was litigated for approximately a year, during
which time none of the details of the fraud scheme were discovered by Novastar. Then on or about
April 6, 2015, the case was dismissed without prejudice.

THE FINAL FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY

65. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that beginning in or around
November 2011, cross-defendants Lending West, Capital Securities, Yesayan, Gevorkian, Emboyan,
LBC Capital, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Dadyan, Konstant Closings, Kabilafkas, Simon,
Ortiz, Dominique, Frazier, La Mere, Lim, ROES 1-50 and ROES 101 through 150 (hereinafter
collectively the “Fraudsters”), entered into a conspiracy to “rescue” Anait, Sogomon, and Vartan’s
Property from the foreclosure proceedings that Deutsche Bank had commenced, and to unlawfully
convey, flip, churn and encumber the Property and launder the Property’s title for the purpose of
delaying the foreclosure process and so as to fraudulently obtain money from innocent lenders who,
like Novastar, had no knowledge of the Fraudsters’ illegal scheme. Pursuant to the Fraudsters’ plan
and agreement, the Second and Third TDUS were recorded to give the false impression in the public
record that Capital Securities had obtained title to the Property with a cash bid at a foreclosure sale,
and thereafter, that it had conveyed title to the Property to Gevorkian, who thereafter conveyed title to

Emboyan. Novastar is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that both transfers to Gevorkian

-16-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page37of170 PageID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:19999

and Emboyan, involved innocent lenders.

66.

is, as follows:

(a)
(b)
(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)
(h)

(m)

(n)

Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the roles of the Fraudsters

Lending West - the first straw buyer who allegedly purchased Property at a
foreclosure sale of the Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust

Capital Securities (a dba of Yesayan) — the second straw buyer who allegedly
purchased the Property at a foreclosure sale of the Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust

Gevorkian — the third straw buyer who took title to Property from Capital Securities

and borrowed purchase monies from La Costa Loans to complete the transaction

Emboyan — the fourth straw buyer who took title to Property from Gevorkian, with
whom he shared a residential address, and for which he borrowed purchase monies

from Novastar
Lending Bee — the loan broker that submitted the Emboyan Loan Application to

Novastar

LBC Capital — an affiliate of Lending Bee

Dorfman — the qualifying broker under whose license Lending Bee operates

Isperov —an employee, agent, servant or affiliate of Lending Bee

Tenin — a Senior Regional Manager of Lending Bee

Konstant Closings — the escrow corporation that handled the Gevorkian—Emboyan
transaction in which Novastar supplied the purchase money loan

Kabilafkas — the owner and principal of Konstant Closings

Dadyan ~ a licensed real estate agent and affiliate of Kabilafkas who is believed to
have found the Property in foreclosure in 2011 and worked behind the scenes with
Anait, Sogomon and Vartan and the other Fraudsters to carry out all the title
transactions alleged herein and obtain the loan from Novastar

Simon — the escrow officer who handled the Konstant Closings escrow involving

Novastar, Gevorkian and Emboyan

-17-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page 38o0f170 PageID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20000

(0) Ortiz, Dominique, Frazier, La Mere, Arteaga, Lim — notary publics who notarized
pivotal instruments to transfer the Property’s chain of title, commencing with the First
TDUS and ending with the Grant Deed from Gevorkian to Emboyan and the Novastar
Deed of Trust

67. | Gevorkian’s fraudulent purchase of the Property involved a loan from La Costa Loans,
Inc., a California corporation, in the amount of $520,000 (“La Costa Loan”), which was evidenced
by a Deed of Trust recorded against the Property on January 23, 2013 as Instrument No. 20130109935.
Gevorkian defaulted under the La Costa Loan and a Notice of Default was recorded on November 5,
2013. That prompted the Fraudsters to transfer the Property’s title once again, from Gevorkian to
Emboyan, obtaining the Novastar loan in the process, and reaping for the Fraudsters’ benefit additional
sums of money since the Novastar Loan was greater than the La Costa Loan.

68. | Emboyan’s purchase of the Property from Gevorkian involved obtaining yet another
loan from an innocent lender; this time, Novastar. Gevorkian transferred the Property to Emboyan
pursuant to a Grant Deed that was recorded on December 18, 2013 as Instrument No. 20131778693.
The purchase money funds supplied by Novastar were used to pay-off the La Costa Loan, A
reconveyance of the La Costa Loan deed of trust was later recorded on April 9, 2014 as Instrument
No. 20140358352. Accordingly, when Novastar funded the loan on behalf of Emboyan, Novastar
believed it to be bonafide purchase transaction and Novastar was a bonafide encumbrancer for value
because Novastar were completely unaware of the Fraudsters’ conspiracy, plan and agreement by
which title to the Property was laundered through the names of several individuals whose identities,
employment, credit, and other information had been falsely created and then supplied by the Fraudsters
to Novastar. Also, Novastar had no actual or constructive knowledge or notice that Anait, Sogomon
and Vartan were supporting, encouraging, and aiding and abetting the Fraudsters in their conspiracy,
which continued to provide Anait, Sogomon and Vartan with more time and delayed a foreclosure
under the Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust.

69. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in the next step of the

Fraudsters’ conspiracy and scheme, Gevorkian transferred title to the Property to Emboyan. In that

-18-
oOo CoO NT DH

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20001

process, the Fraudsters conspired, planned and agreed together to secure a purchase money loan from
Novastar in the amount of a $637,500. Since the filing of the Akopyan Lawsuit, Novastar has
discovered and learned for the first time the details of the Fraudsters’ complex conspiracy; in patt,
such discovery coming from Novastar learning that similar transactions took place with respect to title
to the Catalina Property, and other properties, in which the identical fraudsters performing or were
involved with performing similar transactions. Consequently, as of late 2016, Novastar has become
informed and now believes and thereon alleges that the Fraudsters drafted a loan application for
Emboyan that contains false information, false signatures, false documents of identification, or
documents containing false or stolen identifying information on Emboyan all of which were used by
the Fraudsters to induce Novastar to make the $637,500 loan, and believe that its deed of trust was a
first lien on the Property.

70. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that as an additional further step
in furtherance of the fraud scheme, in or around December of 2013, Isperov, on behalf of LBC Capital
and Lending Bee, contacted Novastar and represented to Novastar that he had a loan opportunity for
Novastar with the purported borrower Emboyan. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon
alleges that Isperov, on behalf of LBC Capital and Lending Bee, then sent Novastar Emboyan’s
fraudulent loan application seeking a purchase money loan of $637,500, so that Emboyan could
purchase the Property from Gevorkian.

71. Novastar relied on LBC Capital, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Dadyan, and
ROES 66 through 100 inclusive to provide truthful and accurate information regarding Emboyan’s
identity, employment, income, cash down payment, and existence as a living person.

72. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in or around December
2013, LBC Capital, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Dadyan, and ROES 66 through 100,
presented false information to Novastar about Emboyan’s income, employment, social security

number, identification, assets, and down payment.

73. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in or around December

2013, LBC Capital, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Dadyan, and ROES 66 through 100,

-19-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page40of170 Page ID

© Oo NY DB WA BP W Pw oe

NWN MN YN WN

#:20002

falsely represented to Novastar that Emboyan was purchasing the Property from Gevorkian for
$850,000 and that if Novastar made the purchase money loan to Emboyan, that Novastar would receive
a first priority lien against the Property.

74. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in reliance on the aforesaid
fraudulent representations, on or about December 5, 2013, Novastar agreed to loan Emboyan $637,500
(“Novastar Loan’) with the understanding that it would be secured by a first lien deed of trust on the
Property.

75. Pursuant to the Promissory Note dated December 5, 2013 (“Note”). that Emboyan
signed in favor of Novastar, the principal amount of $637,500 was to be repaid in monthly payments
beginning on February 1, 2014, and continuing thereafter for one year, until January 1, 2015, when
the Novastar Loan matured and all remaining sums of principal and interest became fully due and
payable.

76. | The Note was secured by a Deed of Trust allegedly signed by Emboyan, notarized by
Lim, and by said instrument Novastar was granted a first lien security interest in the Property
(“Novastar Deed of Trust”). Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the on or
about December 5, 2013, the Novastar Deed of Trust was recorded as Instrument No. 20131778694,

77, Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about December 5,
2013, Gevorkian allegedly executed a Grant Deed before the same notary, Lim, and by that Grant
Deed title to the Property was conveyed to Emboyan (“Emboyan Grant Deed”), The Emboyan Grant
Deed was thereafter recorded as Instrument No. 20131778693.

78. | Novastar funded the Loan by wiring $637,500 into an account belonging to Konstant
Closing, the escrow servicing company that handled the purchase and sale transaction between
Gevorkian and Emboyan (“Escrow”).

79. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Simon held herself out as
an escrow officer working for Konstant Closings and who was involved in and worked on the Escrow.
Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that pursuant to the parties’ written escrow

instructions, Simon, as the employee and agent of Konstant Closings, agreed and represented that

-20-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page41of170 PageID

wo © JIT DB wT

10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20003

Emboyan was purchasing the Property from Gevorkian pursuant to a written Residential Purchase
Agreement, that title to the Property would be vested in Emboyan, that Novastar would receive a first
priority deed of trust against the Property, and that all existing liens would be satisfied prior to
recording the Novastar Deed of Trust.

80. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Final Settlement
Statement provided to Novastar by Simon and Konstant Closings stated that $551,035.56 of the sale
proceeds was used to pay off the existing first lien mortgage held by La Costa Loans against the
Property. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the balance of its funds were
paid out and distributed to the Fraudsters and, possibly also, to Anait, Sogomon, and Vartan, for whose
benefit the foreclosure avoidance scheme was implemented. )

81. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Fraudsters, including
Konstant Closings and Simon, made the above-described misrepresentations to Novastar for the
purpose of obtaining the Novastar Loan so that the defaulted La Costa Loan could be paid in full, and
allow the Fraudsters to take additional funds for themselves by churning and transferring title to the
Property another time.

82. Novastar is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the Fraudsters were
able to continue carrying out their conspiracy because all this time no action was taken to foreclose on
the Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust and, even though the Deutsche Bank Quiet Title Action had been
filed, no Lis Pendens was recorded against the Property and so no actual or constructive notice was
imparted to Novastar that the action was pending at the time it made the Novastar Loan.

83. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in furtherance of the
Fraudsters’ scheme that the Fraudsters created and recorded the Second TDUS and Third TDUS that
purported to convey the Property to Capital Securities. Further, Novastar is informed and believes
and thereon alleges that Anait, Sogomon and Vartan all benefitted and gained time due to the actions
of the Fraudsters because said actions delayed the foreclosure of the Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust and
clouded and confused the Property’s title to such a degree that Deutsche Bank has delayed foreclosing

on the Property. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Fraudsters’ actions

-21-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page 42of170 PageID

“SD

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20004

were known to, consented to, approved and ratified by Anait, Sogomon and Vartan and, therefore,
they are co-conspirators or aided and abetted the Fraudsters’ scheme.
84. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that beginning in April, 2014

and continuing thereafter, Emboyan defaulted on the Note and Novastar Deed of Trust by failing to

5|| make his monthly payments. Emboyan then also failed to pay the Note in full when it came due.

85. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about July 7, 2014,
real estate agent Dadyan sent Lending Bee an email to which she attached a purported death certificate
that indicated Emboyan had died in Armenia. Thereafter, Dorfman, of Lending Bee, forwarded that
same email and death certificate to Novastar. Subsequently, Tenin of Lending Bee contacted Novastar
and told Novastar that he had spoken with members of Emboyan’s family and they did not want to
lose the Property because Emboyan had paid approximately $200,000 in cash as a down payment on
the Property. |

86. | _Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the death certificate of
Emboyan is fraudulent or altered, such that Emboyan may have died prior to the funding of the
Novastar loan but that his identity was used by the Fraudsters; and, Lending Bee’s representations
regarding Emboyan’s death and his family were false because Novastar subsequently discovered that
Emboyan’s name had been used to obtain at least two additional loans subsequent to his purported
death.

87. | Novastar is informed and believe and thereon alleges that the first of these additional
loans was made on or about October 18, 2014, as evidenced by a Deed of Trust purportedly executed
by Emboyan in favor of Oscar Hernandez evidencing a security interest in the real property described
as 12330 Lithuania Drive, (Granada Hills), Los Angeles, California 91344 (the “Lithuania Property”),
and purportedly securing a loan in the amount of $11,500.

88. | Novastar is informed and believe and thereon alleges that the second of these loans was
made on or about December 12, 2014, as evidenced by a Deed of Trust purportedly executed by
Emboyan in favor of plaintiff Sogomon evidencing a security interest in the Lithuania Property, and

purportedly securing a loan in the amount of $11,000 (“Emboyan Deed of Trust”).

-22-
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20005

TITLE REVERTS TO NOVASTAR

89. On or about July 1, 2015, Novastar recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell
under Deed of Trust against the Property as Instrument No. 20150786667.

90. On or about October 21, 2015, Novastar published a Notice of Trustee’s Sale,
scheduling a foreclosure sale for the Property, which was recorded as Instrument No. 20151290180.

91. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on February 29, 2016, S.B.S.
Trust Deed Network, as trustee, conducted a trustee’s sale of the Property, at which the Property
reverted to Novastar upon its credit bid. Thereafter, a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale was recorded on
March 17, 2016 as Instrument No. 20160292135. A true and correct copy of Novastar’s Trustee’s
Deed Upon Sale is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

92. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Property is a multi-unit
residential property that consists of a duplex and a free standing bungalow. Following Novastar’s
acquisition of the Property, Novastar contacted the tenants occupying the Property and demanded that
all rent payments be made to Novastar as the new owner of the Property. Novastar is informed and
believes and thereon alleges that the tenants in the Property have failed and refused to pay their rents
to Novastar and, instead, they are continuing to pay their rents to Anait and/or the Fraudsters, until the
Court orders otherwise.

93. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on March 31, 2016,
Deutsche Bank finally recorded a Notice of Rescission of Trustees Deed Upon Sale as Instrument
No. 20160357531 purporting to rescind as void, the Second TDUS.

94. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on April 5, 2016, Deutsche
Bank finally recorded a Notice of Rescission of Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale as Instrument
No. 20160375797 purporting to rescind as void the Third TDUS.

95. Both of Deutsche Bank’s Notices of Rescission of Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale were
grossly untimely, deficient, and served no legitimate purpose other than to try and cove-up and obscure

Deutsche Bank’s dilatory actions, as described above.

-23-
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20006

PLAINTIFFS’ PARTICIPATION IN THE FRAUD

96. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the events alleged herein
occutred with the knowledge or consent of Anait, Sogomon, or Vartan. Novastar is informed and
believes and thereon alleges that Anait, Sogomon and Vartan aided and abetted the Fraudsters by
knowingly permitting the Property to be transferred as described above, as part of a fraudulent scheme
to avoid, delay, or impair the pending foreclosure on the Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust. Novastar is
informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the transfers have allowed the parties to launder
title to the Property, take multiple loans out on the Property each time keeping all or some of the loan
proceeds for themselves, and to collect rents generated by the Property, all the while allowing Anait,
Sogomon and Vartan to “keep” the Property and challenge validity of the various transactions,
including the one on which Novastar foreclosed and obtained title to the Property. Novastar is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that Anait, Sogomon, or Vartan’s participation in the fraud
is further evidenced by, inter alia, the deed of trust executed by Emboyan in favor of Plaintiff
Sogomon, after Emboyan’s purported death.

97. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Anait, Sogomon and Vartan
have engaged in a similar scheme with respect to the Catalina Property, pursuant to which they allowed
a false Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale to be recorded against the Catalina Property, and permitted the
Property to be fraudulently conveyed to multiple parties, including cross-defendant Gevorkian.

98. | Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Anait, Sogomon and Vartan
are precluded from enforcing their ownership interest in the Property against Novastar due to, inter
alia, their involvement in the fraudulent schemes alleged herein.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Quiet Title Against Anait, Sogomon, Vartan, Deutsche Bank,
Countrywide, Apex, Lending West, Capital Securities, Gevorkian, and Emboyan,
Unknown Cross-Defendants, and ROES 1 through 50, Inclusive

97. Novastar realleges and incorporates herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 37,
39 through 50, 56, and 58 through 64, inclusive, as though fully set forth hereat.

98. Novastar is the owner in fee simple of the Property as of March 17, 2016, free and clear
of all liens, encumbrances or adverse claims of title by the Cross-Defendants, and each of them.

-24-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page45o0f170 Page ID

bo

SI NH nN DBP W

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20007

99. Novastar acquired title to the Property via the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale recorded on
March 17, 2016 as Instrument No. 20160292135. The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale conveys the Property
to Novastar following a trustee’s sale conducted pursuant to Novastar’s Deed of Trust, recorded on
December 18, 2013 as Instrument No. 20131778694. A true and correct copy of the Trustee’s Deed
Upon Sale is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

100. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendants Anait,
Sogomon, Vartan, Deutsche Bank, Countrywide, Apex, Lending West, Capital Securities, Yesayan,
Gevorkian, and Emboyan, and ROES 1 through 50, and each of them, have or continue to claim an

interest adverse to Novastar’s interest in the Property.

101. <A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate to clearly establish current
ownership of the Property.

"102. Novastar is seeking to quiet title against the claims of the aforesaid cross-defendants as
follows: (i) cross-defendants Anait, Sogomon, and Vartan, who Novastar is informed and believes and
thereon alleges claim an interest in and to the Property, based on the Grant Deeds dated March 4, 2003
and October 14, 2011; Gi) cross-defendant Deutsche Bank, which Novastar is informed and believes
and thereon alleges claims a lien on the Property based on the Deutsche Bank Deed of Trust;
(iit) cross-defendant Countrywide, which Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges
claims a lien on the Property based on a deed of trust recorded on August 31, 2006 as Instrument
No. 061946829, (iv) cross-defendant Apex, which Novastar is informed and believes and thereon
alleges claims a lien on the Property based on the Apex Deed of Trust, (v) cross-defendants Lending
West, Capital Securities, Gevorkian, and Emboyan to the extent said-cross-defendants assert any right,
title, estate, lien, or interest whatsoever in the Property; and (vi) the claims of all unknown cross-
defendants, whether or not the claim or cloud is known to Novastar.

103. Novastar alleges that the aforesaid cross-defendants’ claims are without any right, title,
estate, lien, or interest whatsoever in the Property.
104. The cross-defendants named as “all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable

right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the Property described in the cross-complaint adverse to cross-
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20008

defendant’s title, or any cloud on cross-defendant’s title thereto” (“Unknown Cross-Defendants”)
are unknown to Novastar. Novastar is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the
Unknown Cross-Defendants claim some right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the Property adverse to
Novastar’s title, and their claims, and each of them, constitute a cloud on Novastar’s title to the _
Property.

105. Novastar seeks to quiet title its rights, title and interest in the Property as of December
18, 2013, the date on which it acquired its lien on the Property as evidenced by the Deed of Trust
recorded as Instrument No. 20131778694, and as of March 17, 2016, on which date Novastar
foreclosed on the Novastar Deed of Trust and obtained title to the Property as evidenced by the
Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale recorded on March 17, 2016 as Instrument No. 20160292135.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Fraud — Intentional Misrepresentation
Against Anait, Sogomon, Vartan, Lending West, Capital Securities, Yesayan, Gevorkian,
Emboyan, LBC Capital, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Konstant Closings,
Kabilafkas, Simon, Dadyan, Ortiz, Dominique, Frazier, Le Mere, Arteaga, Lim,
and ROES 51 through 150

106. Novastar realleges and incorporates herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 98
above as though fully set forth.

107. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Fraudsters and ROES
51 through 150 intentionally made or caused to be made misrepresentations of fact concerning the real
estate loans, foreclosures and related sales transactions alleged above and that said misrepresentations
were made to Novastar knowing they were false and to induce Novastar to make a loan to Emboyan
so that he could purchase the Property from Gevorkian.

108. Novastar is informed and believes and on that basis specifically alleges, that cross-
defendants Gevorkian, Emboyan, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Dadyan, Konstant Closings,
Simon, Ortiz, Dominique, Frazier, Le Mere, Arteaga, and Lim falsified documents, and concealed and
misrepresented material facts in the Property’s chain of title in the public record and directly to
Novastar, including misrepresenting to Novastar in December of 2013, that: (ij) Cross-Defendant

Gevorkian was the owner of the Property and held valid title to the Property by reason of the Grant

-26-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page47of170 Page ID

aD

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2]
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20009

Deed executed to her by Capital Securities; (ii) that Gevorkian contracted with Emboyan for the sale
of the Property to Emboyan; (iii) that Emboyan was a legitimate buyer of the Property who paid a
significant down payment for the Property’s purchase; (iv) that Novastar’s funds would be used to
purchase the Property and pay off a first priority deed of trust against the Property that Gevorkian had
placed thereon; (v) that Novastar’s loan to Emboyan would be secured by a first priority deed of trust
against the Property; (vi) that no other deeds of trust or mortgages encumbered the Property; and
(vii) that Novastar’s funds were used for a lawful purpose.

109. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that all of the above statements
of fact were false when made or when the instruments in the Property’s chain of title were recorded,
but the cross-defendants intentionally made the misrepresentations knowing they were false at the
time, to induce Novastar to make its loan to Emboyan and pay its funds in order to further launder title
to the Property and fraudulently convert Novastar’s funds to the detriment of Novastar.

110. Novastar is informed and believes and on that basis specifically alleges, that cross-
defendants Anait, Sogomon, Vartan, Lending West, Capital Securities, Yesayan, and ROES 1 through
110, inclusive, conspired with and entered into an agreement with the Fraudsters to aid and abet the
Fraudsters, and to launder title to the Property and unlawfully transfer and encumber the Property.

111. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that cross-
defendants Lending West, Capital Securities, Yesayan, and ROES 51 through 150 aided and abetted,
and acted in furtherance of, this conspiracy to launder title to the Property and unlawfully transfer and
encumber the Property by: (i) unlawfully executing and recording the First TDUS in favor of Lending
West; (ii) misrepresenting in the false First TDUS that a trustee’s sale of the Property took place on
November 2, 2011 and that Lending West lawfully obtained title to the Property via the trustee’s sale;
(iii) unlawfully executing and recording the Second TDUS in favor of Capital Securities;
(iv) misrepresenting in the false First TDUS that a trustee’s sale of the Property took place on August
17, 2012 and that Capital Securities lawfully obtained title to the Property via the trustee’s sale;
(v) unlawfully executing and recording the Third TDUS in favor of Capital Securities;
(vi) misrepresenting in the false Third TDUS that a trustee’s sale of the Property took place on August

-27-
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20010

17, 2012 and that Capital Securities lawfully took title to the Property at the trustee’s sale; and
(vii) unlawfully executing and recording the Grant Deed to Gevorkian.

112. Cyross-Complainant is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that cross-
defendants Anait, Sogomon, and Vartan, and ROES 51 through 150 aided and abetted, and acted in
furtherance of, this conspiracy by consenting to and aiding and abetting the Fraud Cross-Defendants
and ROES 51 through 150’s scheme to launder title to the Property, and to fraudulently transfer and
encumber their Property to unlawfully avoid a pending foreclosure sale of the Property, and by
executing the Apex Deed of Trust and Emboyan Deed of Trust in furtherance of the conspiracy.

113. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said cross-defendants and
ROES 51 through 150 knew that Novastar would review and rely upon these concealments and
misrepresentations made in connection with the Loan transaction.

114. Atthe time these representations occurred, Novastar was ignorant of the falsity of the
misrepresentations and concealments of said cross-defendants and ROES 51 through 150 and Novastar
reasonably relied on these representations in providing Novastar’s Funds for and participating in the
Loan transaction.

115. Asa direct and proximate result of the material misrepresentations, concealments, and
the fraud in furtherance of the conspiracy by said cross-defendants and ROES 51 through 150,
Novastar has suffered general and compensatory damages in amount according to proof at trial.

116. The conspiracy, concealment, and intentional misrepresentations by said cross-
defendants and ROES 51 through 150 were done with malice, oppression and/or fraud. Thus, Cross-
Complainant is entitled to recover exemplary and punitive damages in an amount according to proof.

117. In the alternative to general and compensatory damages, Novastar is informed and
believes and thereon alleges that if Novastar’s Funds are not recovered, cross-defendants Gevorkian,
Emboyan, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Dadyan, Konstant Closings, Simon, and ROES 51
through 150 will be unjustly enriched in the sum of at least $637,500.00, and any additional amounts

as according to proof at trial.

118. Cross-Complainant is therefore entitled to recover as restitution from cross-defendants

-28-
ao nN

\o

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20011

Gevorkian, Emboyan, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Dadyan, Konstant Closings, Simon,
and ROES 51 through 150 the sum of at least $637,500.00, together with prejudgment interest thereon
as allowed by law, and any additional amounts as according to proof at trial, so as to prevent these
cross-defendants and ROES 51 through 150 from being unjustly enriched through fraud and forgery.

119. Cross-Complainant additionally is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under the tort of
another doctrine, as Cross-Complainant was required to file a lawsuit to recover Novastar’s Funds
because of said cross-defendants’ and ROES 51 through 150’s tortious conduct.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Conversion Against Gevorkian, Emboyan, LBC Capital, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov,
Tenin, Konstant Closings, Kabilafias, Simon, Dadyan, and ROES 51 through 150

120. Cross-Complainant realleges and incorporates herein the allegations in paragraphs 1
through 98 above as though fully set forth.

121. Novastar is informed and believes and on that basis alleges, that the cross-defendants
Gevorkian, Emboyan, LBC Capital, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Konstant Closings,
Kabilafkas, Simon, Dadyan, and ROES 51 through 150, inclusive, transferred a part or all of the funds
they wrongfully obtained from the funding of the Novastar Loan and that said cross-defendants are
now holding the funds they fraudulently obtained from Novastar in other accounts controlled and/or
owned by cross-defendants Gevorkian, Emboyan, LBC Capital, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov,
Tenin, Konstant Closings, Kabilafkas, Simon, Dadyan, and ROES 51 through 150, inclusive; or, that
said funds have been used to acquire real and personal property assets that being held and/or controlled
by said cross-defendants. When Novastar identifies the real and personal property assets said cross-
defendants acquired, improved or maintained with the funds Novastar was defrauded into supplying,
then Novastar will amend this cross-complaint and seek the imposition of a constructive trust over
those assets. |

122. Novastar is informed and believes and on that basis alleges, that cross-defendants
Gevorkian, Emboyan, LBC Capital, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Konstant Closings,
Kabilafkas, Simon, Dadyan, and ROES 51 through 150 converted Novastar’s Funds in the amount of

$637,500, in or about December 2013, which sum said cross-defendants were not entitled to receive.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page50o0f170 Page ID

Sa SN NH A ff

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20012

Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Gevorkian, Emboyan, LBC Capital,
Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Konstant Closings, Kabilafkas, Simon, Dadyan, and ROES
51 through 150 intentionally perpetrated their fraudulent scheme and aided and abetted one another in
carrying it out, all in an effort to defraud Novastar. As a result, Novastar has been damaged in an
amount to be proven at trial.

123. Novastar is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that in doing the acts and
things alleged herein and in carrying out their conspiracy and plan to defraud Novastar, that cross-
defendants Gevorkian, Emboyan, LBC Capital, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Konstant
Closings, Kabilafkas, Simon, Dadyan, and ROES 51 through 150 were guilty of fraud, oppression and
malice and acted in wanton and willful disregard of the rights of Novastar, and by reason thereof,
Novastar is entitled to exemplary or punitive damages against said cross-defendants in an amount
appropriate to punish or set an example of. |

124. Novastar is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that cross-defendants
Gevorkian, Emboyan,; LBC Capital, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Konstant Closings,
Kabilafkas, Simon, Dadyan, and ROES 51 through 150 intended to transfer, convey, distribute,
disburse, or otherwise utilize the monies fraudulently obtained by Novastar when it was induced to
fund the Novastar Loan into the Bank of America Account of Konstant Closings, which funds were
thereafter converted and misappropriated by Gevorkian, Emboyan, LBC Capital, Lending Bee,
Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Konstant Closings, Kabilafkas, Simon, Dadyan, and ROES 51 through 150
inclusive.

125. Novastar has no adequate remedy at law to protect itself and it will be irreparably
damaged if the cross-defendants are permitted to further transfer, convey, or distribute the
misappropriated monies they obtained from Novastar; therefore, Novastar will request a temporary,
preliminary, and permanent injunction enjoining any further transfers, conveyances, distributions,
payments, or other disbursements of the misappropriated monies that Novastar was fraudulently
induced to pay into Konstant Closing’ escrow trust account at Bank of America, and which funds

cross-defendants Gevorkian, Emboyan, LBC Capital, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin,

-30-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page51of170 PageID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20013

Konstant Closings, Kabilafkas, Simon, Dadyan, and ROES 51 through 150 are now holding in other
accounts, until this litigation is concluded.

126. In the alternative to general and compensatory damages, Novastar is informed and
believes and thereon alleges that if Novastar’s Funds are not recovered, then cross-defendants
Gevorkian, Emboyan, LBC Capital, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Konstant Closings,
Kabilafkas, Simon, Dadyan, and ROES 51 through 150, inclusive, will be unjustly enriched in the sum
of at least $637,500, and any additional amounts according to proof at trial.

127. Novastar is entitled to recover the Novastar Funds from cross-defendants Gevorkian,
Emboyan, LBC Capital, Lending Bee, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, Konstant Closings, Kabilafkas,
Simon, Dadyan, and ROES 51 through 150, inclusive, in a sum of at least $637,500, together with
prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, plus any additional amounts as Novastar
proves at trial, so as to prevent said cross-defendants from being unjustly enriched by their fraud.

128. Novastar additionally is entitled to its attorney’s fees and costs under the tort of another
doctrine, as it was required to file this lawsuit to recover the Novastar Funds because of said cross-

defendants’ tortious conduct.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Eserow Contract Against Gevorkian, Emboyan, Konstant Closings
and ROES 51 through 65 Inclusive

129, Novastar realleges and incorporates herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 98
above as though fully set forth.

130. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about December 5,
2013, Novastar entered into a written escrow contract between Gevorldan as seller, Emboyan as buyer,
and Konstant Closings as the escrow (“Escrow Instructions”). A true and correct copy of the Buyers’
set of the Escrow Instructions is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 2. Novastar is informed and
believes and on that basis alleges that ROES 51 through 65 inclusive are affiliated parties, servants,
agents and employees who obligated themselves to execute and perform. the Escrow Instructions.

131, Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that pursuant to the written

~3]-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page52o0f170 Page ID

Co Oo SN DD

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20014

Escrow Instructions, Konstant Closings and ROES 51 through 65 agreed and represented that
Emboyan was purchasing the Property from Gevorkian pursuant to a residential purchase agreement,
that title to the Property would be vested in Emboyan, that Novastar would be provided with a copy
of Emboyan’s driver’s license, that Novastar would receive a first priority deed of trust against the
Property to secure the new loan Novastar was making to Emboyan to complete his purchase, and that
all existing liens would be satisfied prior to the recording of the Emboyan Grant Deed and the Novastar
Deed of Trust.

132. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendant Konstant
Closings and ROES 51 through 65 breached the Escrow Instructions by, inter alia, failing to provide
Novastar with a copy of Emboyan’s driver’s license, failing to provide Novastar a first priority deed
of trust against the Property, and failing to satisfy all existing liens against the Property prior to
recording the Emboyan Grant Deed and Novastar Deed of Trust. |

133. With the exception of such terms and conditions as may have been excused, Novastar
performed each and every covenant and condition on its part to be performed under the Escrow
Instructions.

134. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that pursuant to paragraph 21 of
the Additional Escrow and Instruction Provisions of the Escrow Instructions, Novastar is entitled to
recover, jointly and severally, from Gevorkian, Emboyan, Konstant Closings, and ROES 51 through
65 inclusive, all legal fees, litigation costs, damages, judgments, attorneys’ fees, arbitration costs and
fees, expenses, obligations, and liabilities of every kind which Novastar has in good faith incurred or
suffered in connection with or arising out of the escrow and, further, that Novastar was granted a lien
upon all rights, titles and interests the parties had in the Property and in the Novastar Funds that were
supplied by Novastar pursuant to said Escrow Instructions. By this Cross-Complaint Novastar hereby
makes demand to be fully indemnified and held harmless from all of the aforesaid damages, costs,
fees, expenses, obligations and liabilities arising out of or related to said cross-defendants’ breach of

the Escrow Instructions.

135. Novastar has sustained actual damages as a proximate result of the breaches of the
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page53o0f170 PageID

N

10
li
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20015

Escrow Instruction, as alleged herein, plus prejudgment interest, expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Escrow Negligence Against Konstant Closings,.
Kabilafkas, Simon, and ROES 51 through 65 Inclusive)

136. Novastar realleges and incorporates herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 98
above as though fully set forth.

137. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times alleged
herein, Konstant Closings, Kabilafkas, and Simon, and their agents, assumed and owed a professional
duty of care to Novastar and were required to use the same degree of reasonable care, skill and
diligence in acting as an escrow holder for Novastar, as other similarly situated, licensed, escrow
agents in Southern California.

| 138. Atall relevant times alleged herein, Konstant Closings, Kabilafkas, Simon, and ROES
51 through 65, inclusive, were bound by the standards of care with respect to the Novastar Loan
transaction described in the Escrow Instructions, Note and Novastar Deed of Trust, and said cross-
defendants owed a duty to Novastar to use reasonable care and skill with respect to the handling of the
escrow for Emboyan’s purchase of the Property from Gevorkian.

139. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Konstant Closings,
Kabilafkas, Simon, and ROES 51 through 65, negligently breached the professional duties they owed
to Novastar, thereby proximately causing Novastar to sustain compensatory and consequential

damages in an amount according to proof at trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against Konstant Closings,
Kabilafkas, Simon, and ROES 51 through 65 Inclusive

140. Cross-Complainant realleges and incorporates herein the allegations in paragraphs 98

through 98 above as though fully set forth.
141. At all times herein alleged, Konstant Closings, Kabilafkas, Simon, and ROES 51

through 65, inclusive, held a position of trust and confidence with respect to Novastar, out of which

-33-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page54of170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20016

said cross-defendants owed Novastar a fiduciary duty to exercise the utmost loyalty and good faith
towards Novastar at all times and to place Novastar’s interests ahead of said cross-defendants’
interests, and to deal with Novastar with the utmost truthfulness and transparency.

142. Konstant Closings, Kabilafkas, Simon, and ROES 51 through 65 inclusive breached
their fiduciary duty to Novastar by failing to notify Novastar that cross-defendants never received a
photo ID for Emboyan, that many of the escrow documents showed red flags that brought Emboyan’s
identity or existence into question, by failing to alert Novastar that the chain of title transactions by
which Gevorkian obtained title to the Property were questionable and possibly falsified, by failing to
alert Novastar that Emboyan had not placed all of his funds into escrow, and failing to communicate
to Novastar all of the material facts and information that was known to said cross-defendants that
related to the escrow, the Property, Gevorkian and Emboyan.

143, As aresult of the cross-defendants’ aforesaid breach of their fiduciary duty, Novastar
has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Written Contract Against Lending Bee, Dorfman, LBC Capital, Isperov,
Tenin, and ROES 66 through 100 Inclusive

144. Novastar realleges and incorporates herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 98
above as though fully set forth.

145. In early December, 2013, Novastar, as the lender, accepted a written Uniform
Residential Loan Application (“Loan Application”) that was supplied to it by Lending Bee and
Dorfinan, as the originating brokers, for purposes of Novastar underwriting, approving and funding of
a purchase money Novastar Loan to Emboyan. A true and correct copy (redacted in part) of the Loan
Application is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit 3. |

146. Novastar, is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Lending Bee and
Dorman were assisted in performing their duties under the Loan Application, including completing
the Loan Application with data about Emboyan, his employment, assets, and liabilities, by LBC

Capital, Isperov, Tenin, and ROES 66 through 100, inclusive.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page55of170 PageID

aD

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

19
20
21
22,
23
24
25
26
27
28

18

#:20017

147. Inevery contract, including the Loan Application, there is an implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing which precludes any party to a contract from taking any action which would
deprive the other party of the benefit of its bargain.

148. Pursuant to the express terms of the Loan Application that Lending Bee and Dorfman
submitted to Novastar, said cross-defendants represented that the information provided in the Loan
Application was true and correct and they acknowledged that if said information was intentionally or
negligently misrepresented that they could have civil liability, including monetary damages, to
Novastar. Furthermore, Lending Bee and Dorfman acknowledged in the Loan Application that
Novastar would rely on the information contained in the Loan Application, which was being submitted
for the purpose of obtaining the Novastar Loan.

149, Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that cross-defendants Lending
Bee, Dorfman, and their agents, servants, employees and affiliated cross-defendants, LBC Capital,
Isperov, Tenin, and ROES 66 through 100 inclusive breached the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing that was part of the Loan Application, as well as the Loan Application’s express terms,
creating and/or providing Novastar with a falsified Loan Application and related documents, failing
to alert Novastar to red flags in the Loan Application and related documents, and referring to Novastar
a Loan Application that was part of a fraudulent scheme to launder title to the Property to confuse
record title and buy for the Akopyan parties more time on their defaulted Deutsche Bank loan.
Additionally, said cross-defendants did not disclose to Novastar that the alleged seller, Gevorkian,
used the same home address as did Emboyan (12330 Lithuania Drive, Granada Hills, California); and,
that Lending Bee and Dorfman had never obtained proof of deposits that Emboyan claimed he was
holding in an unidentified checking/savings account.

150, Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that by their conduct, cross-
defendants Lending Bee, Dorfman, LBC Capital, Isperov, Tenin, and ROES 66 through 100 inclusive
have unfairly frustrated the agreed common purpose of the Loan Application contract and have

interfered with Novastar’s expectation of financial benefit from making what it believed was a

legitimate loan to Emboyan.

-35-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page56of170 Page ID

So NN DN A BP WwW b

\o

10

12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28

11

#:20018

151. With the exception of such terms and conditions as may have been excused, Novastar
has performed each and every covenant and condition on its part to be performed under the Loan
Application contract because it underwrote, approved and funded the Novastar Loan to Emboyan and
accepted the Novastat Deed of Trust on the Property as security.

152. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid breach of the Loan Application

contract, Novastar has sustained actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Broker Negligence Against Lending Bee, LBC Capital,
Dorfman, Isperoy, Tenin, and ROES 66 through 100 Inclusive

153. Novastar realleges and incorporates herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 98
above as though fully set forth.

154. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times alleged
herein, Lending Bee, LBC Capital, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, and ROES 66 through 100, inclusive,
and their agents, servants, employees and affiliates, assumed and owed a professional duty of care to
Novastar and were required to use the same degree of reasonable care, skill and diligence in acting as
a loan broker for Novastar, as other similarly situated, licensed, loan brokers in Southern California.

155. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times alleged
herein, Lending Bee, LBC Capital, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, and ROES 66 through 100, inclusive,
were bound by the standards of care with respect to the above-described Loan transaction with
Novastar and owed a duty to Novastar to use reasonable care and skill with respect to the handling of
the Loan.

156. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Lending Bee, LBC Capital,
Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, and ROES 66 through 100, inclusive, breached the duty of care that they
owed to Novastar and as a proximate result, Novastar was induced to underwrite, approve and fund
the Loan to Emboyan and accept the Novastar Deed of Trust on the Property, completely unaware that
the Property’s chain of title had been tainted by the fraud scheme hereinabove alleged.

157. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Lending Bee, LBC Capital,

-36-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page57of170 PageID

i)

SIN A BR W

10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20019

Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, and ROES 66 through 100, inclusive, Novastar has suffered general and

compensatory damages in amount according to proof at trial.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Against Lending Bee, LBC Capital, Dorfman,
Isperov, Tenin, and ROES 66 through 100 Inclusive

158. Novastar realleges and incorporates herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 98
above as though fully set forth.

159, Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at Lending Bee, LBC
Capital, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, and ROES 66 through 100 inclusive held a position of trust and
confidence with respect to Novastar, and thereby owed Novastar a fiduciary duty.

160. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that as such Lending Bee, LBC
Capital, Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, and ROES 66 through 100 inclusive owed Novastar a duty to
exercise the utmost loyalty and good faith towards Novastar at all times in connection with the
Novastar Loan.

161. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Lending Bee, LBC Capital,
Dorfman, Isperov, Tenin, and ROES 66 through 100 inclusive breached that duty by failing to abide
by the duty of loyalty and good faith by, among other things, failing to notify Novastar that many of
the documents in the Property’s chain of record title showed red flags; by failing to alert Novastar that
the Loan transaction with Emboyan was falsified and his employment, identity, and assets may be
misrepresented; by failing to alert Novastar that Emboyan had not placed funds into escrow for the
transaction; that they had not confirmed the source and presence of the $200,000+ funds that Emboyan
was allegedly putting towards the transaction; by allowing Novastar’s funds to be wired into the
escrow trust account at Bank of America knowing the Loan may be falsified; and, by failing to
communicate material facts and information that was known to said cross-defendants and that

concerned the Novastar Loan.

162. Asaresult of the aforesaid breach of fiduciary duty, Novastar has been damaged in an

amount to be proven at trial.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page58of170 PageID

#:20020

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Notary Negligence Against Ortiz, Dominique, Frazier, Le Mere, Arteaga,
Lim, and ROES 101 through 125 Inclusive

163. Novastar realleges and incorporates herein the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 98
above as though fully set forth.

164. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Ortiz, Dominique, Frazier,
Le Mere, Arteaga, Lim and ROES 101 through 125 inclusive (“Notary Cross-Defendants”) were, or
held themselves out to be, duly commissioned, qualified and acting notary publics in the State of
California whose commissions were in full force and effect at the times they acknowledged the First
TDUS, the Second TDUS, the Third TDUS, the Grant Deed to Gevorkian, the Novastar Deed of Trust,
and the Grant Deed to Emboyan (“Fraudulent Instruments”).

165. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that as California notary publics,
the Notary Cross-Defendants were required to perform their respective notary duties subject to
California statutes and regulations. As a notary public, each of the Notary Cross-Defendants owed a
duty of due care to the public and to Novastar to carry out their duties with due care.

166. Novastar is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in acknowledging the
signatures on the Fraudulent Instruments, the Notary Cross-Defendants enabled the instruments to be
recorded so as to perpetrate the fraudulent title laundering scheme and foreclosure avoidance scheme
that is described above. Specifically, the Notary Cross-Defendants acknowledged forged or false
documents and actively furthered, aided and abetted the fraud and other wrongdoings of other cross-
defendants as alleged above. The performance of the Notary Cross-Defendants fell below the
applicable standard of care and constituted breaches of the notary public’s statutory or regulatory
duties of care that are owed to the public and to Novastar specifically.

167. Novastar is further informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the Notary
Cross-Defendants violated their respective duties to the public and to Novastar by failing to use their
skill, experience, and training to obtain lawful proof of identity including authority to sign on behalf

of a corporate entity; and failed to recognize the information, evidence, and other circumstances

-38-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page59of170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20021

relating to the Fraudulent Instruments which would have put a prudent notary public who was acting
up to the standard of care in the industry, on notice that persons executing the above-described
documents were not the individuals they claimed to be, that the purported foreclosing trustees and
lenders did not actually or apparently authorize a trustee’s sale, and that the aforementioned Fraudulent
Instruments were either an outright forgery or contained false statements, misrepresentations of title,
misrepresentation of authority, false statements of identity, and other material misrepresentations.

168. Novastar is further informed and believes and on that basis alleges the Notary Cross-
Defendants respective acts and/or omissions constituted negligence that was the direct and proximate
cause of Novastar’s damages, as alleged herein. But for the Notary Cross-Defendants’ negligence,
the Fraudulent Instruments could not have been recorded and the Property’s chain of title would not
have been impaired, to Novastar’s resulting damage and detriment.

169. Novastar is entitled to an award of damages against that Notary Cross-Defendants in
an amount to be proven at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Novastar prays for judgment against the Cross-Defendants and each of

them, as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

1. For a judgment of the Court quieting title to the Property in favor of Novastar as of
December 18, 2013, the date on which it acquired its lien on the Property as evidenced
by the Deed of Trust recorded as Instrument No. 20131778694, and as of March 17,
2016, on which date Novastar foreclosed on the Novastar Deed of Trust and obtained
title to the Property as evidenced by the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale recorded on March
17,2016 as Instrument No. 20160292135; that Novastar holds valid title to the Property
as of March 17, 2016; and that cross-defendants have no interest in the Property adverse
to NOVASTAR;

2. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper;

-39-
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page60o0f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

18

#:20022

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

For damages in an amount of at least $637,500.00 and any further amounts to be

determined at trial;
For prejudgment interest thereon;
For attorney’s fees and costs under the Tort of Another Doctrine;
For exemplary and punitive damages;
For a constructive trust over all real and personal property assets said cross-
defendants acquired, improved or maintained with the funds Novastar was defrauded —
into supplying;
For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper, including
but not limited to, restitution in the amount of at least $63 7,500.00 and any
additional amounts as according to proof at trial;
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

For damages in an amount of at least $637,500.00 and any further amounts to be
determined at trial;
For prejudgment interest thereon;
For attorney’s fees and costs under the Tort of Another Doctrine;
For exemplary and punitive damages:
For attorneys’ fees, as permitted by law;
For costs of suit;
For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper, including
but not limited to, restitution in the amount of at least $637,500.00 and any
additional amounts as according to proof at trial;

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

For damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
For prejudgment interest thereon,

For attorneys’ fees, as permitted by law;

-40.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page61of170 PageID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20023

For costs of suit;

For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper;

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

For general, compensatory, and consequential damages in an amount to be proven at
trial;

For prejudgment interest thereon;

For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper;

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

For general, compensatory, and consequential damages in an amount to be proven at ~

trial;

For prejudgment interest thereon;

For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper;
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

For damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

For prejudgment interest thereon;

For attorneys’ fees, as permitted by law;

For costs of suit; and

For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper;

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

For general, compensatory, and consequential damages in an amount to be proven at
trial;

For prejudgment interest thereon;

For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper;

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

For general, compensatory, and consequential damages in an amount to be proven at
trial;

For prejudgment interest thereon;
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page62o0f170 Page ID
#:20024

1 3. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper;

2 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

3 1, For general, compensatory, and consequential damages in an amount to be proven at
trial;
2. For prejudgment interest thereon;

4
5
6 3. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper;
7

8|| Dated: March 36, 2017 HERSHORIN &

IRI C. HERSHORIN
AN C. WILCOX
CLAUDIA MOURAD
12 Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Defendant/
Cross-Complainant, NOVASTAR, LLC, a
13 Delaware limited liability company
Ny NS w- NY KH W

#:20025

(

VERIFICATION

I, FELIX PHILIP LANDAU, am the Account Managet of Cross-Complainant NOVASTAR,

LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

I have read the First Cause of Action for Quiet Title in the foregoing ctoss-complaint and

know the contents thereof, The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters that

are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe same to be true.

1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing

is true and correct, Executed this 16 day of March, 2017 im Los Angeles, California.

FELIX PHILIP LANDAU

Account Manager
Novastat, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

-1-

VERIFICATION
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1303

FROM:

TO:

ATIN:

#:20033

349
606

ANGELA SIMON
Borrower(s): KARAPET EMBOYAN

Property Address: 4628 KINGSWELL AVE., LOS
ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90027

Filed 04/29/22 Page 71o0f170 Page ID

Document Dnt: DECEMBER 5, 2023

Clasing Dats! DECEMBER 18, 2013
Disbursement Date; DECEMBER 18, 2013
Caso No.:
App. No.:

ADDENDUM TO CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS
{Additional conditions to bs satisfied prior to disbursemont of Ionn proceeds)

4. TITLE INSURANCE TO INCLUDE COVERAGE OF 125% OF LOAN AMOUNT

5. NOTARY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF E&0 INSURANCE

6. NOTARY TO BE APROVED BY LENDER
7, PREPAID INTEREST PAYABLE TO- FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC.

8. DO NOT DISBURSE FUNDS WITROUT AUTHORIZATION FROM- LENDING BEE,

INC,
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:
Be en ate
AN IMON
~ #:20034

{

INSTANT CLOSINGS

18305 Sherman Way, Suite 23 Reseda, CA 91335 Phone: 818.245,5332/818,941,9822 Fax: 818.975.5041.

Email: KCLOSINGSESCROW@HOTMAIL.COM
Escrow Vesting Amendment

Date: December 5, 2013
RE: Escrow Number: 11070 Escrow Officer: Angela Simon

Property Address: 4628 Kingswell Ave Los Angeles, CA 90027

Buyer’s vesting is as follows:

Karapet Emboyan , a single man } Certify this a try
e
COpy of the Original
Karapey/Emboyan

EACH OF THE ABOVE SIGNED STATES HE/SHE HAS READ THE FOREGOING INSTRUCTIONS AND
UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES TO THEM

Exhibit
Pg. 5 of 70
#:20035 =
\

INSTANT CLOSINGS

\ cet ¢ ane ong 18305 Sherman Way, Suite 23 Reseda, CA 91335
Phone: 818.941,9822/818.245.5332 Fax: 818.975.5041
Email: KC LOSINGS ESCROW @H OTMAIL.COM

ADDENDUM TO CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS DATE
NOVEMBER 18, 2013

Karapet Emboyan, (herelnafter known as Buyer), agree to purchase from Epraksi Gevorkian (hereinafter known as Selle
the real property set forth herein per the terms, conditions, consideration and instructions herein after stated, The Seller ar
Buyer herein shall deliver these signed escrow instructions to Konstant Closings (herelnafter known as Escrow Hoider), with
5 calendar days after receipt of same. Close of escrow to be on or before DECEMBER 18, 2013.

KONSTANT CLOSINGS IS LICENSED AS AN ESCROW AGENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS OF TH
STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNDER LICENSE NUMBER #01381181

Escrow Number #: 11070 Dated: November 19, 2013, Escrow Officer: Angela Simo!
Terms of Transaction:

SALE PRICE: $850,000.00 LOAN AMOUNT: $680,000.00 DOWNPAYMENT: $165,000.00 ;

Buyer will deposit with escrow as EMD $6,000,00 Furthermore, | will execute and deliver any instruments and/or funds whict
this escrow requires to show title as called for, all of which you are instructed fo use on or before DECEMBER 30, 2013
provided you hold a Policy of Title Insurance with the usual title company's exceptions, with a llability not less than $850,000.00
covering property 4828 KINGSWELL AVENUE, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90027 described as follows:

( JT 7 IN BLOCK C OF EDGEMONT TERRACE IN BOOK 3, PAGE 90 OF MAPS IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
GOUNTY OF LOS ANGELES IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

‘SHOWING TITLE VESTING IN: KARAPET EMBOYAN (EXACT VESTING TO BE DETERMINED THROUGH ESCROW)

FREE FROM ENUCMBRANCES EXCEPT:

1. General and Special County and City {if any) taxes for the current fiscal year, not due or delinquent, including any

special levies, payments for which are included therein and collected therewith.
Lien of Supplemental Taxes, If any, assessed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section

2.
76) of the Revenue and Tax Gode of the State of California.

3. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, reservations easements for public utilities, districts, water companies,
alleys and streets, rights and rights of way of record, if any; also exceptions of oll, gas, minerals and hydrocarbons,
and/or lease, if any, without the right of surface entry.

4, A New FIRST Trust Deed in the amount of $680,000.00 in favor of Lender of Buyer's choice, Escrow Holder

is Instructed to comply with all of the lender's requirements In connection with sald new foan.

INSTRUCTIONS TO ESCROW:

4. VESTING: Karapet Emboyan, exact vesting to be determined through escrow prior to the close of escrow. Escrow holder
is Instructed to Insert Buyer's Vesting and/or name variation onto the Grant Deed above Seller's signature as per Buyer's written

instructions.

BUYERS INITIALS SELLERS nragE

pone 1

Exhibit >
Pg.6 of /O
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page 74of170 Page ID
#:20036 oa
(

2 INSPECTION WAIVER: Buyer has chosen {to walve the Wood Destroying Pest and Organism Inspection and Physic:
inspaction and accepts subject property in its present conditlon without warranty from Seller. Therefore, Seller has bee
relieved of any responsibility and/or Ilability In connection with any findings from any companies or individuals contracted b

the Buyer regarding the above mentioned inspections

3, CLOSE WITHOUT REQUIRED REPORTS AND/OR CERTIFICATES: In the event any or all City and or County require
Reports and/or Certificates (Including but not limited to Certificate of Compliance and 9-A Residential Property Report) hav
not been deposited into escrow by the close of escrow, Escraw Holder Is authorized and Instructed to proceed with the clos
of this escrow, without llabllity In the part of Escrow Holder. Buyer understands that Escrow Holder makes no representation
and/or warranties as fo the content of any Reports or Certificates. In the event there are any discrepancies on said Reports c
Certificates, Seller agrees to remain responsible up ta the close of escrow and Buyer and Seller to handle same autside c
escrow. Buyer and Seller heraby release Konstant Closings of any and all responsibility and/or llabllity in connection of same

4, PRORATIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS: Only the following prorations and/or adjustments will be made in this escrow, to
be calculated by Escrow Holder as of the date of the close of escrow:

a). Real property taxes based upon the tax Information and mello-roos and Special Assessments District Bonds
and Assessments, if any, which js supplied by the title company.

“Laws and Govemment Regulations” and “General Provisions” are made a part of previous pages as [f fully incorporated
therein.

THE FOREGOING INSTURCTIONS AND THOSE GENERAL PROVISIONS ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PAR)
HEREOF ARE APPROVED AND ACCEPTED IN THEIR ENTIRETY AS FULLY SET OUT IN THIS PARAGRAPH. EACt
OF THE UNDERSIGNED BUYER(S) AND SELLER(S) HEREBY AUTHORIZE CLOSING AGENT TO FURNISH COPIES Of
( “LOSING STATEMENTS TO LENDERS AND/OR BROKERS INVOLVED.THESE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS DO NO}
| STATE ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND JOIN]
ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS AND/OR AMY AMENDMENTS THERETO EXECUTED BY THE HERERIN BUYER(S) ANE
‘'SELLER(S) NOR DO THEY SUPERSEDE SAID SAME. THE CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL PURCHASE AGREEMENT ANE
JOINT ESCROW INSTURCTIONS AND ANY SUPPLEMENTS AND/OR AMENDMENTS ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE

HEREIN ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY

-Karapet Eyiboyan

Epraks! Gevorkian

Page 2
#:20037

ADDITIONAL ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS AND PROVISIONS
1, The partles to this escrow are made aware that Escrow Holder has no obligation to verify signatures of the

parties Involved,

2. You shall not be responsible for the following: (1) the sufficiency or correctness as to form, manner of execution

or validity of any documents deposited In this escrow: (2) the identity, authority, or right of any person executing the
same either as to documents of record or thase handled in the escrow: or (3) the fallure of any party ta comply with
any of the provisions of any agreement, contract or other document filed or deposited in this escrow or referred to In
those escrow Instructions, Your dutles shall be limited to the safekeeping of money and documents recelved by you

as Escrow Holder and for the disposition in compllance with the written instructions accepted by you in this escrow.
You shall not be required to take any action regarding the collection, maturity, or apparent outlaw of any obligations
deposited with you unless otherwise Instructed in writing.

3. Where the assignment of any Insurance policy from Seller to Buyer is concermed, Seller guarantees to you any
Insurance policy handed you in this escrow policy In force, the policy has not been hypothecated and that all necessary
premiums have been pald. You are authorized fo execute on behalf of the parties assignments of interest in any
Insurance policy (other than title insurance policies) called for In thls escrow, you are authorized to transmit for
assignment any Insurance policy to the Insurance agent requesting that the insurer consent to such assignment, to
request that a loss payee clause or such other endorsements as may be required be issued and to forward such policy
to the lenders and entitled partled. You shall not be responsible for verifying the acceptance of the request for
assignment and polley of Insurance by the insurance company. The parties mutually agree that you will make no attempt
to verlfy the recelpt of the request for assignment by the issuing Insurance company. All partles are placed on notice
that If the insurance company should fail to receive the assignment by the Issuing company may be deny coverage for
any loss suffered by Buyer. IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE INSURED OR THE INSURED REPRESENTATIVE TO
VERIFY THE ISSUING COMPANY’S ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE POLICY. .

4, You are not to be held responsible In any way whatsoever for any personal property fax which may be assessed
agalnst any former or present owner of the subject property described In these escrow instrucilons, nor for the
carporation or license tax of any corporation as a former present owner.

5. if ft ls necessary, proper or convenient for the consummation of thls escrow, you are authorized to deposit or have
deposited funds or documents, or both, handed you under these sscrow instructions, with any duly authorized sub escrow
agent, including but not limited to, any bank, trust company, title insurance company, title company, savings and loar.
association, or licensed escrow agent, subject to your order at or before close of escrow In connection with closing this
escrow. Any such deposit shall be deemed a deposit under meaning of these escrow Instructions,

6. The parties fo this escrow have satisfied themselves outside of escrow that the transaction covered by this escrow
ls not In violation of the Subdivision Map Act or any law regulation land division, zoning ordinances or building
restrictions which may affect the land or improvements that are the subject of this escrow. You as escrow holder are
relieved of all responsibility and liability In connection with such laws, ordinances, restrictions or regulations and are
not to be concemed with any of thelr enforcement.

7. if any form of Purchase Agreement of amendment or supplement (collectively “Purchase Agreement’) Is deposited
in this escrow, It Is Understood that such document shall be effective only as between the parties signing the Purchase
Agreement, You, as Escrow Holder, are not to be concerned with the terms of any Purchase Agreement and are rellevad
of all responsibility for the enforcement of its terms. Your only duty is to comply with the

Instructions set forth In the escrow instructions. You are not responsible for interpreting or acting on any provision of
any Purchase Agreement on which these escrow Instructions may be based and you shall not rely on any knowledge

or understanding you may have of any such Purchase Agreement In ascertaining or performing your duties as Escrow
Holder. In connection with any loan transactions, you are authorized to deliver copy of any Purchase Agreement,
supplement or arnendment and a copy of all escrow instructions, supplements or amendment to the fender.

8. You shall make no physical Inspection of the real property or personal property described In any Instruments
deposited in, or which Is the subject of this escrow. You have made no representations or warranties conceming any
‘suoh real property or personal property and are not to be concemed with nor liable for the conditions of real property

or personal property.

BUYERS INITIALS SELLERS mag LE

Page 3

Ibi
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page 76o0f170 PageID
#:20038 —

9 The parties authorize the recordation of any instrument delivered through this escrow if necessary or proper for the
issuance of the required policy of title insurance or for the closing of this escrow. Funds, instructions or instruments
recalved in this escrow may be delivered to, or deposited with any title insurance company or title company to comply
with fhe terms and conditions of this escrow.

10. You are to use your usua! document forms or the usual forms of any title insurance company or title company

and In our Instructions Insert dates and terms on the Instruments if Incomplete when executed.

11,If the date by whlch Buyer's or Seller's performances are due shall be other than your regular business day, such
performances shall be due on your next succeeding business day. ; .

12. You shall conduct no {len or title sear of personal property regarding the sale or transfer of any personal property
through this esarow. Should the parties desire that you conduct 4 llen or title search of personal property, the parties
requesting the same shail deliver separate and specific written escrow Instructions to you along with an agreement to
pay your additional escrow fees,

13. You shall not be responsible In any way whatsoever nor are you to be concemed with any question of usury in
any loan or encumbrance, whether new or of record, which may arfse during the processing of this escrow.

14 The parties agree to deliver to you all documents, Instruments, escrow Instructions and funds required to process
and close this escrow In accordance with Its terms.

16. You are Instructed to provide title to the subject real property in the condition Identified In the escrow instructions
by the parties. You are not responsible for the contents or accuracy of any beneficiary demands and/or beneficiary
statements delivered to you by the existing llen holder, You are not required to submit any such beneficiary
statements and/or dernand to the parties for approval before the close of escrow unless expressly Instructed to do
so In writing. Should the parties desire to pre-approve any such beneficlary statement and or/demand, the parties
requesting the same shall deliver separate and specific written escrow instructions to you.

16.You are not to be responsible In any way whatsoever nor to be concerned with the terms of any new loan or the
content of any loan documents obtained by any party In connection with this escrow except to order such loan
documents into the escrow file, transmit the loan documents to Buyer for execution and transmit the executed Joan
documents to lender. The partles understand and agree that you are neither Involved nor concerned with the approval
and/or processing of any loan or the contents and effect of joan documents prepared by a lender,

17. The parties expressly indemnify and hold you harmless against third-party clalms for any fees, costs or expenses
where you have acted In good faith, with reasonable care and/prudence and/or in compliance with these escrow
Instructions, You are not required to submit any such beneficiary statement and/or beneficiary demand to the parties
for approval before the close of escrow unless expressly instructed to do so In writing. Should the party (les) desire to
pre-approve any such beneficlary statement and/or beneficlary demand, the party (les) requesting the same shall
deliver separate and specific written escrow instructions to you.

18. The Federal Tax Reform Act of 1986, as amended, and the California Revenue & Taxation Coda, require certain
transactions to be reported to the Internal Revenue Service and Callfornia State Franchise Tax Board. In those
transactions Seller will furnish a correct tax identification number so you can report this transaction as required by law.
Seller understands that Seller may be subject to civil or criminal penalties for failure to do so.

19.The parties agree that you have the responsibilities of an Escrow Holder only and there are no other legal
relationships established In the terms and conditions of the escrow instructions, In connection with this escrow: (1)
You shall have no duty or responsibility of notifying any of the parties to this escrow of any sale, resale, loan, exchange
or other transaction involving any of the subject real property or personal property; (2) You shall have no responsibility
or duty to disclose any benefit, including but not limited to financial gain, reallzed by any person, firm or corporation
involving any of the subject real property or personal property (8) You shall have no responsibility or duty to disclose
any profit realized by any person, firm or corporation Including, but not limited to, any real estate broker, real estate
sales agent and/or 4 party to any other escrow In connection therewith, although such other transaction may be
handled by you In this escrow or in another escrow transaction, If however, you are Instructed in writing by any party,
Lender or other entitled person to disclose any sale, resale, loan, exchange or other transaction Involving any of the

subject real property or personal property or any profit realized by any

BUYERS INITIALS SELLERS InmALsE-

Pg. Gof + 40

Page 4
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page77of170 Page ID

“4

person, firm or corporation to any party to this escrow, you shall do so without incurring any liability to any party.
You shail not be Jlable for any of your acts or omissions done In good falth nor for any claims, demands, losses or
damages made or suffered by any party tot his escrow, excepting such as may arise through or be caused by your
wilful neglect or gross misconduct.

20. Buyer acknowledges that pursuant to the Califomia Revenue & Taxation Code a Change of Ownership form is
required by the county recorder to be completed and affixed to any documents submitted for recording which
evidence a conveyarice of title. The Change of Ownership form shail be fumished to Buyer by you for Buyers
completion and execution, Buyer is aware that if Buyer does not complete the form in full, signed and returns it to
you before closing, a penalty will be assessed by the county recorder. If the Change of Ownership form fs not filed
after the close of escrow within the time limits set forth by the county recorder, severe additional penaltles will be
assessed agalnst the Buyer,

For information and assistance In completing the Change of Ownership form, Buyer may contact the County
Recorder and Assessor's office in the county in which the subject property is located.

21. The partles shail cooperate with you In carrying out the escrow instructions they deposit with you and

completing this escrow, The partles shall deposit Into escrow, upon request, any additional funds, Instruments,
documents, Instructions, authorizations, or other Items that are necessary to enable you to comply with demands made
on you by third parties, to secure policies of titte Insurance, or to otherwise carry out the terms of thelr Instructions and
close this escrow. If conflicting demands or notices are made or served upon you or any controversy arises between
the parties or with a third person arising out of or relating to this escrow, you shall have the absolute right to withhold
and stop all further proceedings in, and in performance of, this escrow until you receive written notification satisfactory
to you of the settlement of the controversy by a written agreement of the parties, or by the final order or Judgment of a
court of competent Jurisdiction. .

All of the parties to this escrow, jolntly and severally, promise to pay promptly on demand, as well as well as to
indemnify you and hold you harmless from and against all administrative governmental Investigations, audit and legal
fees, litigation and interpleader costs, damages, Judgments, attomeys’ fees, arbitration costs and fees, expenses,
obligations and liabilities of every kind (collectively “costs”) which In good falth you may Incur or suffer In connection
with or arising out of this escrow, whether said costs arise during the performance of or subsequent to this escrow,
directly or Indirectly, and whether at trial, or on appeal, in administrative action, or in an arbitration. You are given a
lien upon all rights, ties and Interests of the parties and all escrow papers and other property and monies deposited
Into this escrow to protect your rights and to indemnify and reimburse you. if the parties do not pay any fees, costs or
expenses due you Under the escrow Instructions or do not pay for costs and attorneys’ fees Incurred In any litigation,
administrative action and/or arbitration, on demand, they each agree to pay a reasonable fee for any attomey services
which may be required to collect such fees or expenses, whether attomeys’ fees are incurred before trial, at 4 trial, on
appeal or in arbitration. . a

22.ALL NOTICES, DEMANDS AND {[NSTRUCTIONS MUST BE IN WRITING. No notice demand, instruction
amendment, supplement or modification of these escrow Instructions shall be of any effect in this escrow until
delivered In writing to you and mutually executed by all partles.

Any purported oral Instruction, amendment, modification, notice or demand with you by the parties or either of
them shall be Ineffective and Invalid. You are to be concerned only with the directives expressly set forth In the
escrow Instructions, supplements and amendments thereto, and are not to be concerned with nor Jlable for iterns
designated as “memorandum {tems” in the escrow instructions. These escrow instructions may be executed In
counter parts, each of which shall be deemed an original regardless of the date of Its execution and delivery. All
such counterparts together shall constitute the same document.

The parties acknowledge and understand that you, as Escrow Holder, are not authorized to practice the law nor do
you give financial advice. The parties are advised to seek legal and financial counsel and advice concerning the effect
of these escrow Instnictlons. The parties acknowledge that no representations are made by you about the legal
sufficiency, legal consequences, financial effects or tax consequences of the within escrow instructions.

23, Notwithstanding any other provisions in these escrow instructions and In addition to other fees and costs to which

you may be entitled, the parties, Jointly, and severally, agree that if this escrow {s not consummated within ninety (90)
days of the date set for closing, you are Instructed to, and without further instructions, withhold your escrow fee of
$50.00 per month from the funds on deposit with you regardless of who deposited such funds. The

BUYERS INITIALS SELLERS INITIALS LE

Page 6

Exhibit 2
Pg.7 of 0
#:20040 on

\

‘

parties jointly and severally, further agree that if you are, for any reason required to hold funds after close of

escrow, you are instructed to, and without further instructions, withhold an escrow fee of $50.00 per month from the
funds on deposit with you regardless of who deposited such funds. The parties irrevocably instruct you to

automatically cancel this file without further instructions when all funds on deposit have been disbursed.

24, Your Escrow Holder agency shail terminate six (60 months following the date last set for close of escrow and shal
be subject to earller termination by recelpt by you of mutually executed cancellation instructions. If this escrow was no
closed or cancelled within the described six (6) month period, you shail have no further obligations as Escrow Holder
except to disburse funds and documents pursuant to written escrow Instructions and to interplead or otherwise dispos:
of funds and documents In accordance with a valldly Issued and validly served order ftom a court of competent
jurisdiction. If fhe conditions of this escrow have not been complied with at the expiration date In these escrow
Instructions, you are Instructed to complete the condlilons at the earllest possible date, unless Buyer or Seller have
made written demand upon you for the return of the funds and/or instruments deposited by Buyer or Seller and/or for
cancellation of this escrow. Should demands be made upon you, you may withhold and stop ail further proceedings in
this escrow without Habliity for Interest on funds held or for damages until mutual cancellation Instructions signed by al:
partied shail have baen deposited with you. The parties, jolntly and severally agree that If this escrow cancels or Is
otherwise terminated and not closed, the parties shall pay for any costs and expenses which you have Incurred or hav
become obligated for under thase escrow instructions, including, but not limited to, attorney fees, arbitration fees and
costs and reasonable escrow fees for the services rendered by you, the partles agree that such costs and expenses
shall bepald and deposited in escrow before cancellation or other termination of these escrow is in effective. The
parties agree that sald charges for expenses, costs and fees may be apportloned between Buyer and Seller ina
manner which, In your sole discretion, you consider equitable, and that your decision will be binding and conclusive
upon the parties, Upon receipt of mutual cancellation instructions or final order or Judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction with accompanying writs of execution, levies or gamishments, you are Instructed to disburse the escrow
funds and Instruments in accordance with such cancellation instruction, order or Judgment and accompanying writ and
this escrow shall, without further notice be considered terminated and cancelled,

26. If any check submitted to you fs dishonored upon presentment for payment, you are authorized to notify all

partles to the within escrow, thelr respective real estate brokers and real estate agents and any other person or entity
you deem in you sole discretion necessary to notify. .

26, The parties agree to release toy from any and ail liability of any kind or nature and to indemnify you from any

loss, damages, clalms Judgments or costs of any kind or nature resulting from or related to the release or discharge

of hazardous or toxic wastes on the subject property whether it occurred in the past or present or may occur In the
future which release or discharge Is In violation of law, in excess of any stafe and federal standards, permit

requirements and/or disclose requirements existing at this time or which may exists af a future time. The parties
represent that they made their own assessment of the condition of the subject property and have not relied on any of
your representations In making the assessment, The parties are advised to seek independent legal and technical
environmental expert advice in assessing the risk associated with potential hazardous toxic wastes.

.2T. In these escrow Instructions, wherever the context so requires, the masculine gender Includes the

faminine and/or neuter and the singular number Includes the plural.

28, You are authorized to destroy or otherwise dispose of any and all documents, papers escrow Instructions,
correspondence and records or other material consisting or pertaining to this escrow at any time after five (5) years

from the date of (10 the close of escrow: (2) the date of cancellation: (3) the date of the last activity without liability

and without further notice to the parties.

Kafapet Elfiboyan’ Epraks| Gevorklan

‘age 6
Exhibit 2
Electronically Received 02/11/2021 07:48 PM

Ca

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page 8/7of170 Page ID
#:20049

LORI C. HERSHORIN (SBN 155977) FILED —
ETHAN S. ROBINSON (SBN 310499) .
ethanr@hhlawgroup.com 02/1 1/2021
26475 Rancho Parkway South By: K. Ghazarian peouty
Lake Forest, CA 92630

T: (949) 859-5600 ¢ F: (949) 859-5680

Attorneys for Plaintiff,
WEG NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,

a South Carolina corporation

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE

WFG NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE Case Number: BC640157
COMPANY, a South Carolina corporation,

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:

Plaintiff,
VS. 1) VIOLATION OF RICO — 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961(5), 1962(B)

TAMARA DADYAN, an individual; ROSE 2) VIOLATION OF RICO - 18 U.S.C.
AVAKIAN AKA ROSA AVAKIAN AKA ROZA §§ 1961(5), 1962(C)
AVAKIAN, DBA ESCROW DOC AKA 3) VIOLATION OF RICO - 18 U.S.C.
ESCROW DOC CO., an individual; ADELIYA §§ 1961(5), 1962(D)
TIMIROVA INVESTMENTS, INC., a California 4) CONVERSION
corporation; ARTHUR ABRAHAMOV AKA 5) CLAIM AND DELIVERY
ARTHUR ABRAHAM, DBA ESCROW DOC 6) FRAUD —-INTENTIONAL
AKA ESCROW DOC CO., an individual; MISREPRESENTATION
ADELIYA TIMIROVA, an individual; EGIA 7) CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
KAPEMYAN, an individual; TETIANA VOVK 8) PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
AKA TATIANA VOVK, an individual; 9) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
SECURELINE REALTY AND FUNDING, INC., 10) BREACH OF ESCROW
a California corporation; ARA HARITUNIAN, an AGREEMENT
individual; UNITED ESCROW CO., a California 11) PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
corporation; NERSES NAKSHCHYAN, an 12) EQUITABLE LIEN
individual; QUALITY LOAN SERVICES
CORPORATION, a California corporation; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., a
Utah corporation; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. Complaint Filed: November 8, 2016
AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE FAC Filed: March 28, 2017
CERTIFICATE HOLDERS, PARK PLACE Trial Date: February 15, 2022
SECURITIES, INC. ASSET-BACKED PASS-
THROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005-
WCWS, a National Bank; JUBILIO ESCALERA,
an individual; MJF FUNDING CORPORATION,

-|-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page 88o0f170 Page ID

a NHN WN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20050

a California corporation; VARTAN AKOPYAN
AKA VARDAN AKOPYAN, an individual;
EPRAKSI GEVORKIAN, an individual;
KARAPET EMBOYAN; an individual;
HOVANES YESAYAN AKA HOVHANNES
YESAYAN, an individual; ANUSH
FERAKHYAN, an individual; K-ASTRON
VENTURES, INC. dba KONSTANT CLOSINGS,
a California Corporation; KONSTANTINE
KABILAKFAS, an individual; ANGELA SIMON,
an individual; ALAK MIKAELYAN, an
individual; WILLIAM PARENT, an individual;
TANDEM MORTGAGE, INC.; ANAIT
AKOPYAN, an individual; JOSE ALONZO, an
individual; and DOES 14-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

WFG NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a South Carolina corporation, alleges as

follows:

THE PARTIES

1. PLAINTIFF WFG NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY (“PLAINTIFF” or
“WFG”) is a South Carolina corporation conducting business within this judicial district.

2. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant TAMARA
DADYAN aka TAMARA TAMMY DADYAN AKA TAMMY DADYAN aka TAMARA DADJIAN
(“DADYAN”) is, and at all relevant times herein, was an individual residing in Los Angeles County,
California and within this judicial district. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges
that DADYAN held a Salesperson License with the California Bureau of Real Estate (“BRE”) (License
Number 01294823) and was the owner and President of SECURELINE REALTY AND FUNDING,
INC. (“SSECURELINE”), a California corporation. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon
alleges that DADYAN’S license was suspended by the BRE based upon misconduct and fraud.
PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes that DADYAN acted as a real estate /loan agent in the
subject transactions, even though she was unlicensed. |

3. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges SECURELINE is, and at all relevant

times referenced herein, was a California corporation conducting business within this judicial district,

-2-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Ca

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

S

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page 89o0f170 Page ID
#:20051

and has a licensed corporation with the DRE, License Number 01526599. PLAINTIFF is informed and
believes and thereon alleges that SECURELINE uses other entity names to conduct business such as
SECURELINE FUNDING, SECURELINE, and SECURELINE INVESTMENTS.

4. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges Defendant ARA HARITUNIAN
(“HARITUNIAN”) is, and at all relevant times referenced herein, was an individual residing in this
judicial district. Plaintiff further is informed and believes that HARITUNIAN is, and at all times, was a
licensed real estate broker, number 01050355, for SECURELINE at the time of some of the transactions
at issue.

5. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges Defendant ROSE AVAKIAN
AKA ROSA AVAKIAN AKA ROZA AVAKIAN, DBA ESCROW DOC AKA ESCROW DOC CO.
(“AVAKIAN”) is, and at all relevant times referenced herein, was an individual doing business in Los
Angeles County, California, and within this judicial district.

6. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges Defendant ADELIYA
TIMIROVA INVESTMENTS, INC. (“ATI”) is, and at all relevant times referenced herein, was a
California corporation doing business in Los Angeles County, California and within this judicial district.

7. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges Defendant ADELIYA
TIMIROVA (“AT”) is, and at all relevant times referenced herein, was an individual residing in Los
Angeles County, California, and within this judicial district. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that defendant AT is the President of ATI and its majority shareholder.

8. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges Defendant TETIANA VOVK
AKA TATIANA VOVK (“VOVK”’) is, and at all relevant times referenced herein, was an individual
residing within this judicial district.

9. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges Defendant UNITED ESCROW
CO. (“UNITED ESCROW”) is, and at all relevant times alleged herein, was a California corporation,
conducting business within this judicial district.

10. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges Defendant JUBILIO

ESCALERA (“ESCALERA”), is, and at all relevant times referenced herein, was an individual residing

-3-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Ca

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

S

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page900f170 Page ID
#:20052

in Los Angeles County, California and within this judicial district.

12. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges Defendant MJF FUNDING
CORPORATION (“MJF”), a California corporation, is, and at all relevant times alleged herein, was a
California corporation, conducting business within this judicial district.

13. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges Defendant ALAK
MIKAELYAN ("MIKAELYAN?”), is, and at all relevant times referenced herein, was an individual
residing in Los Angeles County, California and within this judicial district.

14. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendant HOVANES
YESAYAN AKA HOVHANNES YESAYAN (“YESAYAN?”) is, and at all relevant times herein, was
an individual residing within this judicial district.

15. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendant K-
ASTRON VENTURES, INC. dba KONSTANT CLOSINGS DBA KONSTANT CLOSING (“K-
ASTRON”), is a California corporation, conducting business within this judicial district.

16. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendant
KONSTANTINE KABILAKFAS (“KABILAKFAS”) is, and at all relevant times herein, was an
individual residing in Los Angeles County, California, and within this judicial district and was a licensed
real estate broker with the BRE, license number 01176858, at SECURELINE and K-ASTRON.
PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that KABILAKFAS was the broker of
record for SECURELINE and K-ASTRON for certain transactions at issue in the Second Amended
Complaint.

17. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendant ANGELA
SIMON (“SIMON”) is, and at all relevant times herein, was an individual residing in Los Angeles
County, California and within this judicial district.

18. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendant TANDEM
MORTGAGE, INC. (“TANDEM”) is, and at all relevant times herein, was organized under the laws of
the State of California as a California corporation doing business within this judicial district.

19. | PLAINTIFF if informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that Defendant JOSE

-4.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Ca

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ss

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page91of170 Page ID
#:20053

ALONZO (“ALONZO”) is, and at all relevant times herein, holds or held a record title interest in certain
real property at issue in the SAC within this judicial district in Los Angeles, California.

20. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendant STEVEN
A. ABRAMSON (“ABRAMSON”) is a real estate broker, and at all relevant times herein, resided within
this judicial district.

21. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Defendant ROMANA
CIAS (“CIAS”) is an individual and at all relevant times herein, resided within this judicial district.

22. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ARTUR A.
AYVAZAN AKA ARTHUR A. AYVAZAN, AKA ARTHUR AYVAZIAN (“A. AYVAZAN”) is and
at all relevant times herein was an individual residing within this judicial district in Los Angeles,
California.

23. | PLAINITFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant AVETIS
AVETIKIAN AKA AVETIS AVIETIKYAN AKA AVIK AVETIKYAN (“AVETIKIAN”) is, and at all
relevant times herein, was an individual residing within this jurisdictional district in Los Angeles,
California.

24. PLAINITFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant TATYANA
MOROZOV, Trustee of the Vovk 2016 Trust (““SMOROZOV’) is, and at all relevant times herein, was an
individual residing within this jurisdictional district in Los Angeles, California.

25. | PLAINITFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant JULIO CESAR
ANDIA AKA CESAR ANDIA (“ANDIA”) is, and at all relevant times herein, was an individual residing
within this jurisdictional district in Los Angeles, California.

26. | PLAINITFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant GEGHETSIK
NERSISYAN AKA GEGTISK NERSISYAN (“NERSISYAN?”) is, and at all relevant times herein, was
an individual residing within this jurisdictional district in Los Angeles, California.

27. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DOE Defendants 14-50 are
persons residing within this judicial district or entities doing business in California and within this judicial

district. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of

-5-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page92of170 PageID

oO CO YT DN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20054

Defendants and DOES 14-50, inclusive, are unknown to PLAINTIFF who therefore sues said Defendants
and DOES 14-50 by such fictitious names. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges
that each of the Defendants and DOES 14-50 designated herein as a fictitiously named Defendant is in
some manner responsible for the events and happenings herein referred to, and tortiously caused the
damage to PLAINTIFF as herein alleged. PLAINTIFF will amend the Second Amended Complaint to
allege such true names and capacities when same are ascertained.

28. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times relevant hereto,
Defendants and DOES 14-50, and each of them, were agents, employees, and representatives of each of
the named Defendants and DOES 14-50, and in doing the things herein mentioned were acting within the
course and scope of such agency, employment, and representations, and each of these defendants
proximately caused damages to PLAINTIFF as alleged herein. Moreover, the names and legal capacities
of the defendants herein named as “ALL OTHER PERSONS KNOWN OR UNKNOWN, CLAIMING
ANY RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN
THE COMPLAINT, ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF’S JUNIOR LIEN INTEREST OR ANY CLOUD ON
PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT THERETO” (‘UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS”) are unknown to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS, and each
of them, claim some right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the hereinafter described real property adverse
to Plaintiffs’ rights, title and interest in that same real property. PLAINTIFF names the UNKNOWN
DEFENDANTSpursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 762.060(a).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

29. This is a complex civil action for damages including Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”), for declaratory and injunctive relief, for actual, consequential and
exemplary damages, and for all other relief which this Honorable Superior Court deems just and proper
under all of the facts and circumstances of this case. Beginning in 2006 through 2020, and, in Los
Angeles County and within this judicial district, PLAINTIFF is informed and believe and thereon allege
that Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABJLAFAKAS, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE,
HARITUNIAN, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, YESYAN, ESCALARA and DOES 14-50, (“RICO

-6-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page93o0f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20055

DEFENDANTS”) conspired and participated in a criminal enterprise designed to defraud lenders and
title insurers, including, PLAINTIFF and its assignors, by using forgery, wire fraud, mail fraud,
falsification of internet records fraudulent representations, and other illegal and fraudulent means as
alleged herein.

30. The predicate acts alleged herein cluster around criminal activity by these RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 who acquired and/or maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in
or control of a RICO enterprise of individuals who were associated in fact and who did engage in, and
whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1), (5),
(9), and 1962 et. seq., during the past ten calendar years. The RICO DEFENDANTS did cooperate jointly
and severally in the commission of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts that are itemized in the
RICO laws at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1)(A) and (B), and did so in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. §§
1962(a) and (b) (Prohibited Activities).

31. | PLAINTIFF further alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS did commit two (2) or more
of the offenses itemized above, as well as other offenses to be proven at trial, in a manner which they
calculated and premeditated intentionally to threaten continuity; i.e., a continuing threat of their
respective racketeering activities, also in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b).

32. | PLAINTIFF further is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 were all parties to a criminal enterprise which commenced using real
property located in Los Angeles County for their mortgage fraud schemes commencing after 2010.
PLAINTIFF further is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS colluded
with each other to defraud lenders into making loans and defrauded title insurers into issuing title
insurance obtained by fraudulent means. The scheme worked through the RICO DEFENDANTS, mostly
compromised of realtors, loan brokers, loan officers, escrow officers, real estateagents and brokers to
fraudulently acquire funds by fraud from unsuspecting lenders, insured by title insurance. By the U.S.
mail system, wires of funds to banks, facsimile communications, and the internet, the RICO
DEFENDANTS recorded false documents in the chains of title to properties, recorded falsified

Reconveyances or Trustee’s Deeds Upon Sale, fabricated fictitious or strawbuyers of the properties who

-7-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page94of170 Page ID

10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20056

purportedly acquired the properties through the fabricated Trustee’s Deeds Upon Sale or other falsified
title records; produced synthetic buyers who applied for purchase money loans from the lenders; used
identify theft and false social security numbers to falsify the borrower/buyer information; and falsified
bank information, credit reports, tax returns, Drivers Licenses, employment information, notary
information, statements of identity and other manufactured and fictitious information for the purpose of
inducing lenders (unbeknowns to them,) into making loans, to the RICO DEFENDANTS, with title
insurance to ultimately pass on the loss to the title insurers. The RICO DEFENDANTS used cell phones,
land lines, wires, facsimiles, the U.S. Mail and other means to further the interests of the criminal
enterprise. They additionally used wire fraud to transfer the fraudulently obtained loan proceeds into
accounts owned by the RICO DEFENDANTS. Once the loan proceeds were wired into certain banking
accounts controlled and owned by the RICO DEFENDANTS under false names, they would immediately
wire transfer the funds through several banks to make the funds difficult to trace. The RICO
DEFENDANTS reaped millions of dollars fraudulently obtained from the PLAINTIFF and/or its
predecessor’s in interest. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a) and (d) respectively.

33. Other RICO predicate acts, although appearing to be isolated events, were actually part of
the overall conspiracy and pattern of racketeering activity alleged herein, e.g. mail fraud and bank fraud.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1344 respectively.

34. | The primary objective of the racketeering enterprise has been to inflict damage upon
lenders, PLAINTIFF and its predecessor’s in interest by this criminal activity.

JURISDICTION

35. | This Honorable Superior Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to the Civil RICO
remedies at 18 U.S.C. § 1964, the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455
(1990), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, hn. 4 (9th
Cir. 1987) (California State courts have concurrent jurisdiction of civil RICO claims).

THE PROPERTIES AT ISSUE IN THIS COMPLAINT

36. The RICO DEFENDANTS used the follow properties, among othes, to defraud lenders

and title insurers in furtherance of their criminal enterprise:

-8-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page95of170 PageID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20057

Real property is located at 4050 Camino De La Cumbre, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423, and legally

described as follows:

That portion of Lots 1 and 2 in Block 9 of Tract No. 10731, in the City of
Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as shown on map
recorded in Book 2002, Pages 20-23 inclusive of Maps, I the Office of the
County Recorder of said County of said County, bounded by the following
described lines:

Beginning at a point in the Southwesterly line of said Lot 2 distant thereon
South 61° 25’ 47” East 148.86 feet from the Southwesterly corner of said
Lot 2; thence North 28° 34’14” East 89.92 feet; thence North 62° 21’ 11”
West 83.50 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing North 62°
11’ 11” West 93.18 feet to the true point of beginning; thence Northerly
along the Westerly lines of said Lots 2 and 1 to the Southerly terminus of
that certain course in said Westerly line of Lot 1 shown on said map as
North 17° 31’ 20” East 59.22 feet, being also the Northwesterly corner of
the land conveyed to Edward Green and wife, by deed recorded on August
14, 1958 in Book D187, Page 32, Official Records, in said office of the
County Recorder; thence along the Northerly line of said land North 83°
12’ 18” East 66.76 feet; thence South 18° 11’ 20” West 98.72 feet to a point
in the Easterly line of said land that is distant thereon North 27 ° 38’ 49”
East 58.05 fee from the true point of beginning; thence along said Easterly
line South 27° 38’ 49” West 58.05 feet to the true point of beginning.

Hereinafter, the above-described land shall be referred to herein as the “CAMINO PROPERTY.”

Real Property at issue is commonly known as 4836 Calhoun Ave., Sherman Oaks, CA 91423,
and legally described as follows:

Lot 53 of Tract No. 9075 in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los
Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 127 page 86 of
Maps, in the offices of the county recorder of said county.

Hereinafter, the above-described land shall be referred to herein as the “CALHOUN
PROPERTY.”
The next property is located at 4628 Kingswell Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90027, and legally

described as follows:

Lot 7 In Block "C" Of Edgemont Terrace, In The City Of Los Angeles,
County Of Los Angeles, State Of California, As Per Map Recorded In Book

-9.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Ca

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

se 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page96o0f170 Page ID
#:20058

3, Page 90 Of Maps, In The Office Of The County Recorder Of Said
County.

Hereinafter, the above-described land shall be referred to herein as the “KINGSWELL
PROPERTY.”
The the last property is located at 2018 North Catalina St., Los Angeles, CA 90027, and legally

described as follows:

Lot 142 Of Tract No. 3907, In The City Of Los Angeles, County Of Los
Angeles, State Of California, As Per Map Recorded In Book 42, Pages 38
And 39 Of Maps, In The Office Of The County Recorder Of Said County.
Hereinafter, the above-described land shall be referred to herein as the “CATALINA
PROPERTY.”
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that other properties may have been used to
launder money, to defraud the Plaintiff and its predecessors in interest, resulting in damage to the Plaintiff
as well as to other lenders and title insures.

THE CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE FRAUD SCHEME

A. THE CAMINO PROPERTY

37. On or about February 2, 2005, defendant ESCALERA obtained title to the CAMINO
PROPERTY by a Grant recorded on February 2, 2005 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County as
Instrument Number 05-0248291. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
ESCALERA and Does 14-25 falsely used the name of ALONZO as a strawbuyer because ESCALERA
was unable to qualify for a purchase money loan by himself.

38. | ESCALERA, agreed to secure a loan from Argent (“ARGENT LOAN’) secured by a
deed of transfer which was recorded on February 2, 2005 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County
as Instrument Number 05-0248292 (‘ARGENT DOT”).

39. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the ARGENT DOT was
assigned to WELLS FARGO via a Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust/Mortgage recorded on
March 29, 2012 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County as Instrument Number 20120478897

-10-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Ca

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Ss

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page97of170 Page ID
#:20059

assigning all beneficial interest in the ARGENT DOT (“Assignment”).

40. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that a Substitution of Trustee
(“SOT”) was recorded on December 15, 2015 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County as
Instrument Number 20141359291, purportedly substituting QUALITY as the trustee under the ARGENT
DOT.

41. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that ESCALERA, like the other
defendants in the criminal enterprise, rented the CAMINO PROPERTY to third parties for at least Four
Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) per month and retained the rents instead of making mortgage payments.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges ESCALARA was in default for most of the life
of the ARGENT LOAN, and to prevent the loss of the CAMINO PROPERTY to a foreclosure,
ESCALERA and RICO DEFENDANTS recorded numerous false documents against the CAMINO
PROPERTY, and filed numerous bankruptcies in general with respect to the CAMINO PROPERTY and
the other properties identified herein. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
DEFENDANT ESCALERA filed bankruptcy in August 29, 2008 (dismissed two months later), February
3, 2009 (dismissed March 27, 2009), October 21, 2009 (dismissed on January 8. 2010), November 25,
2009 (dismissed December 10, 2009), August 8, 2013 (dismissed on February 3, 2014), and February 14,
2014 (dismissed on May 27, 2014). Meanwhile, defendants ESCALERA and DOES 14-50 continued
collecting rents without paying the mortgage. |

42. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in approximately
December, 2016, the RICO DEFENDANTS agreed to use the CAMINO PROPERTY as a vehicle to
fraudulently obtain an Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($850,000.00) loan from a lender, and then
used the loan proceeds gained from the fraud in the criminal enterprise and for the benefit of the RICO
DEFENDANTS.

43. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that ESCALERA failed to make
payments on the ARGENT LOAN, and a Notice of Trustee’s Sale setting a sale date for February 26,
2016 (‘NOTS”) under the ARGENT DOT was recorded on February 3, 2016 in the Official Records of
Los Angeles County as Instrument Number 20160123354. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page98of170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20060

thereon alleges that SPS is the servicer and/or sub-servicer of the ARGENT LOAN on behalf of WELLS
FARGO and is controlling the foreclosure proceedings on behalf of WELLS FARGO.

44. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges a second Notice of Trustee’s
Sale, setting a sale date of April 26, 2016, (“2"! NOTS”) in connection with a default under the ARGENT
DOT by the ESCALERA, was recorded on February 3, 2016 in the Official Records of Los Angeles
County as Instrument Number 20160123354.

45. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS
caused a fictitious Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale (“ARGENT TDUS’”) to be recorded on July 8, 2016 in the
Official Records of Los Angeles County as Instrument Number 20160797398 purporting to eliminate the
ARGENT DOT from the chain of title to the CAMINO PROPERTY. The ARGENT TDUS states that:
the non-judicial foreclosure sale occurred on June 8, 2016; that ATI was the highest bidder at the sale;
that consideration was paid to the Trustee (QUALITY) and/or the beneficiary under the ARGENT DOT;
that QUALITY authorized the ARGENT TDUS; that “Bradley McNair” signed the ARGENT TDUS;
and that title was granted to ATI. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that all of
this information is in fact false.

46. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS
recorded the false ARGENT TDUS in the chain of title to the CAMINO PROPERTY and made it appear
as though ATI obtained title to the CAMINO PROPERTY through the ARGENT TDUS. PLAINTIFF
is informed and believes and thereon alleges that ANDIA signed the false ARGENT TDUS using the
name Bradley McNair. The RICO DEFENDANTS thereafter agreed to create a false purchase agreement
to make it appear as though ATI and AT were selling the CAMINO PROPERTY to a person named
TETIANA VOVK, in actuality of “synthetic buyer” to induce a lender into making a purchase money
loan to VOVK. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS
agreed that they would work to secure a purchase money loan in the amount of One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) from a lender. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
ESCALERA and the RICO DEFENDANTS agreed that ESCALERA would receive Two Hundred

Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) from this fraud scheme and the other monies were to be used in other

-12-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Ca

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

S

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page99o0f170 Page ID
#:20061

investments and schemes by the RICO DEFENDANTS. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS agreed to falsify documents to wire the loan proceeds
from the VOVK loan transaction to banking accounts controlled and held by the RICO DEFENDANTS.

47. As a step in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF is
informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS fabricated and recorded the
ARGENT TDUS allegedly signed by QUALITY on behalf of SPS and WELLS FARGO. The RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 thereafter caused the recording of the ARGENT TDUS. The ARGENT
TDUS reflects ATI as the new owner of the CAMINO PROPERTY.

48. On or about July 20, 2016, the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50, and each of them,
thereafter created a fraudulent Purchase Agreement to reflect a pending sale of the PROPERTY between
VOVK and ATI (“FALSE PURCHASE AGREEMENT”) purportedly signed by VOK and TIMJIROVA
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DADYAN and HARITUNIAN created
the FALSE PURCHASE AGREEMENT falsely reflecting that VOVK was purchasing the PROPERTY
from ATI/AT for One Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,300,000.00), and falsified the
signatures on said document. The PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that to give
a false credibility to the transaction, HARITUNIAN and SECURELINE, and DOES 14-50, signed the
False Purchase Agreement in the section of the purchase agreement stating that they were real estate
agents for the seller, ATI. DADYAN was behind the scenes drafting the documents and communicating
with the various loan agents, loan processors, and escrow transactions to make sure that a lender would
fund the loan for the transaction. This was done to further induce a lender into loaning money to what it
thought was a legitimate purchase transaction involving VOVK and ATI. Moreover, the RICO
DEFENDANTS, on or about July 20, 2016, created an Agent Real Estate Disclosure Form reflecting that
SECURELINE and HARITUNIAN were the real estate brokers for the buyer VOVK, and seller, ATT,
even though Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that buyer and seller were fictitious
and created by the RICO Defendants to defraud a lender and to fraudulently obtain the loan.

49. On or about July 27, 2016, DADYAN, SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, MIF, CIAS and
DOES 14-50 sent the FALSE PURCHASE AGREEMENT to UNITED ESCROW and represented that

-13-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20062

VOVK was purchasing the PROPERTY from ATI forOne Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars
($1,300,000.00) that was to be secured by a first deed of trust (““VOVK DEED OF TRUST”) against the
CAMINO PROPERTY. UNITED ESCROW opened up escrow no. 58708-TK for the ATI-VOVK sale
(“VOVK SALES TRANSACTION”).

50. |The RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 thereafter attempted to obtain a loan from
Stearns Lending. On or about July 20, 2016, DADYAN contacted Stearns Lending requesting a loan
for VOVK. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DADYAN, arranged for an
appraiser to meet ESCALERA, along with another member of the criminal enterprise identified as “AVI”
to enable the criminal enterprise to submit the appraisal to a lender for the fraudulent loan.

51. On or about August 17, 2016, ESCALERA met with other RICO DEFENDANTS at the
property and discussed the criminal enterprise and monies to be divided from the fraudulently obtained
loan process.

52. In or about mid-September, 2016, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon
alleges that Stearns Lending refused to make the loan, and in furtherance of the fraud, PLAINTIFF is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that DADYAN, HARITUNIAN, SECURELINE, MJF, and
DOES 14-50 contacted PLAINTIFF’s assignor, Milestone Financial, DBA Alviso Funding, and
requested a loan for VOVK for the purported purchase of the PROPERTY from ATI and AT. DADYAN,
SECURELINE, and HARITUNIAN held themselves out as real estate agents and presented the False
Purchase Agreement reflecting ATI/AT as the seller, VOVK as the buyer, and MJF as the loan broker.
The False Purchase Agreement was presented to PLAINTIFF’s Assignor to induce it into making a loan
to VOVK under false pretenses. In late September and early October, 2016, Defendants DADYAN,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, CIAS, A. AYVAZYAN, and MJF additionally prepared and presented
false information to PLAINTIFF, including false statements of the synthetic borrower’s (VOVK) income,
employment, social security number, identification, assets, and creditworthiness. PLAINTIFF is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 worked in
concert to induce PLAINTIFF into making the loan to VOVK. As a result of the reliance on the

information presented by the RICO DEFENDANTS that was falsified, PLAINTIFF’s Assignor approved

-14.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page101o0f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20063

the loan for Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($850,000.00) to VOVK for her allegedly purchase
of the CAMINO PROPERTY from ATI and AT (the “VOVK LOAN”). As a further fraudulent
inducement for the funding of the VOVK LOAN, DADYAN and DOES 14-50 provided falsely notarized
documents to PLAINTIFF reflecting that VOVK executed the VOVK DEED OF TRUST and the
promissory note (“VOVK NOTE”) (now assigned to PLAINTIFF) and represented that an authorized
and California licensed notary had witnessed the signing of the VOVK DEED OF TRUST by VOVK.
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that such notary stamp and notary signature
were false, and were provided to PLAINTIFF to induce it into making a loan to the RICO
DEFENDANTS. To further the RICO enterprise, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon
alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS, as was their custom and practice on several transactions,
manufactured telephone numbers and used the telephones, U.S. Mail and U.S. Wire to induce
PLAINITFF into making the loan. They further created a false website for VOVK’s purported employer,
when in fact, no such company has ever existed. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon
alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS created telephone numbers that they would answer to make it
appear as though the employers were in fact authentic.

53. Prior to the closing of the VOVK LOAN, on or about October 17, 2016, ESCALERA
found out that the RICO DEFENDANTS were not going to give him any of money from the VOVK
LOAN proceeds as they had originally agreed. On October 19, 2016, ESCALERA recorded a false
Mechanic’s Lien against the CAMINO PROPERTY in the Official Records of the County of Los Angeles
as instrument No. 20161288558, wherein he made a claim for Two Hundred Thousand Dollars
($200,000.00) in work allegedly performed for the CAMINO PROPERTY by Domingo & Sons dba All
Do Construction. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that ESCALERA
immediately notified the RICO DEFENDANTS, including ATI and AT, and/or their agents, about the
mechanics lien documents in attempt to compel the other RICO DEFENDANTS to pay him the Two
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) of the fraudulently obtained loan proceeds.

54. On or about October 7, 2016, PLAINTIFF funded the VOVK LOAN in the sum of Eight
Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($850,000.00) and net funded the sum of Seven Hundred Seventy

-15-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page 102 o0f170 Page ID
#:20064

Three Thousand Dollars ($773,000.00) to UNITED ESCROW in reliance on the representations that
were falsified by DADYAN, SECURELINE, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, HARITIUNIAN, MIF, and DOES
14-50 in the VOVK LOAN documents, the VOVK DEED OF TRUST, and the VOVK NOTE. On
October 7, 2016, the VOVK DEED OF TRUST, securing the VOVK LOAN, in favor of Plaintff’s
Assignor was recorded in the Office of the County Recorder for Los Angeles County, California.

55. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that in furtherance of the fraud
scheme and conspiracy, DADYAN, CIAS, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, SECURLINE, HARITUNIAN, MSF,
and DOES 14-50 and each of them, presented UNITED ESCROW with e-mails sent by wire
transmissions, wire instructions, false escrow information so that UNITED ESCROW would wire the
loan proceeds into an account controlled and held by the RICO DEFENDANTS.” PLAINTIFF is
informed and believes, and thereon alleges that these RICO DEFENDANTS falsified documents to
reflect that another escrow company would be receiving the loan proceeds by wire. DADYAN,
SECURELINE, A. AVAZYAN, HARITUNIAN, CIAS, and DOES 14-50 fabricated the name of an
escrow officer and escrow office information, used false addresses, fabricated telephone numbers and
manufactured documentation to induce UNITED ESCROW into transferring the fraudulently obtained
VOVK LOAN proceeds to them under fraudulent circumstances. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes,
and thereon alleges that in furtherance of the fraud scheme and conspiracy, two Fictitious Business Name
Statements were filed for ESCROW DOC in 2014.

56. The RICO DEFENDANTS, and each of them, represented to UNITED ESCROW in writing
and orally that ATI/AT purportedly was using the loan proceeds from the VOVK transaction to
purchasing real property located at 931 University Avenue, Burbank, California 91504 (“BURBANK
PROPERTY”), another property used in the criminal enterprise. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes
and thereon alleges that all of this information was false and fabricated for the purpose of obtaining the
loan proceeds for the criminal enterprise.

57. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that the RICO DEFENDANTS
and DOES 14-50 used a portion of the fraudulently obtained monies from PLAINTIFF for the
BURBANK PROPERTY, in furtherance of the criminal enterprise. The RICO DEFENDANTS and

-16-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page103 0f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DOES 14-50, and each of them, received money and value in excess of Seven Hundred Seventy Three
Thousand and Seventy Four Dollars and Sixty Seven Cents ($773,074.67) from their fraudulent scheme
for the CAMINO PROPERTY TRANSACTION.

58. PLAINTIFF was the assignee of rights, title and interest held by PLAINTIFF in the
VOVK DEED OF TRUST, pursuant to a recorded Assignment of Deed of Trust dated January 17, 2017
and recorded on March 16, 2017 as Instrument Number 20170298782 in the Office of the County
Recorder for Los Angeles County, together with an Assignment of Promissory Note secured by the
VOVK DEED OF TRUST, including the Note therein described, the money due, and to become due
thereon with interest, and all rights accrued or to accrue under the VOVK NOTE executed by Tatiana
Vovk in favor of PLAINTIFF, and any and all rights in the claims against the Defendants named herein.
The Trial Court herein has “voided” the VOVK Deed of Trust.

59. Based upon the actions of the RICO DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF was damaged in the sum
of Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dolalrs ($850,000.00) from this transaction alone.

B. THE CALHOUN PROPERTY

60. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about July 17, 2006,
Tamara Townsend (“TOWNSEND”) purportedly purchased the CALHOUN PROPERTY from
Ramarcinss Corporation and obtained title through a Grant Deed recorded in the Los Angeles County
Recorder’s Office as Instrument No. 2006-1564263.

61. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that in connection with that
purchase, Townsend obtained a first loan in the sum of Eight Hundred Thirty Two Thousand Dollars
($832,000.00) from SBMC Mortgage (“FIRST SBMC LOAN”), secured by a Deed of Trust recorded in
the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office as Instrument No. 2006-1564264. Townsend additionally
obtained a second loan in the amount of One Hundred Four Thousand Dollars ($104,000.00) from SBMC
(“SECOND LOAN”), and secured said loan with a second deed of trust recorded in the Los Angeles
County Recorder’s Office as Instrument No. 2006-1564265 (““SBMC DOT”).

62. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about August 24,

2011, the First SMBC DOT was assigned to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for

-|7-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page104o0f170 Page ID
#:20066

HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-SB1 (“HARBORVIEW”) and an Assignment of the SBMC
DOT was recorded in the Office of the County Recorder as Instrument No. 2011-1139254.

63. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that Townsend failed to make
payments under the loan.

64. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about August 30,
2011, a Substitution of Trustee was recorded naming Executive Trustee Services, LLC dba ETS Services,
LLC as the Trustee under the First SMBC DOT recorded in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office
as Instrument No. 20111173610.

65. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about August 30,
2011, HarborView’s trustee, ETS Services, recorded a Notice of Default & Election to Sell Townsend’s
property in connection with a default under the FIRST SMBC LOAN, in the Official Records of Los
Angeles County as Instrument Number as Instrument No. 2011-1173611.

66. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on December 1, 2011, a
Notice of Trustee’s Sale with the Los Angeles County Recorder under Instrument No. 2011-1620844
was recorded.

67. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that RICO DEFENDANTS
caused a Trustee's Deed Upon Sale ("SBMC TDUS") to be recorded on March 29, 2012 in the Official
Records of Los Angeles County as Instrument Number 20120482851 purporting to eliminate the SMBC
DOT. The SMBC TDUS (falsely) states that: the non-judicial foreclosure sale occurred on December
27, 2011 on the CALHOUN PROPERTY; that MIKAELYAN was the highest bidder at the sale; that
consideration was paid to the Trustee (ETS) and/or the beneficiary under the SBMC DOT; that ETS was
the authorized trustee under the SMBC DOT; that "Cathy Lee" signed the SBMC TDUS; and that title
was granted to MIKAELYAN. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that ETS disputes that its agent
signed the SMBC TDUS and has proceeded with a foreclosure proceeding in spite of the recorded SMBC
TDUS. Moreover, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that ANDIA signed the
false TDUS.

68. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS

-18-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page1050f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20067

created a false document entitled “Grant Deed” and purportedly transferred MIKAELYAN’s interest in
the CALHOUN PROPERTY to Equity Partners International by recording, on or about August 14, 2012,
a Grant Deed in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office as Instrument No. 201208140720047 as a
“bonified gift” for zero consideration.

69. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS
created a false document entitled “Grant Deed” and purportedly transferred EQUITY PARTNER
INTERNATIONAL, LLC’s (“SEQUITY PARTNER”) interest in the CALHOUN PROPERTY to
SAHAKYAN MANAGEMENT TRADING, INC. ““SAHAKYAN MANAGEMENT”), a California
corporation, and Arthur Abrahmov, a single man, by recording a Grant Deed in the Los Angeles County
Recorder’s Office as Instrument No. 201220332778, on December 31, 2012.

70. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about December 17,
2012, the RICO DEFENDANTS created a false document entitled “Deed of Trust with Absolute
Assignment of Rents” in favor of Rehabbers Financial, Inc. (““REHABBERS”) as the beneficiary,
reflecting that Rehabbers had loaned SAHAK YAN MANAGEMENT and ABRAHMOYV the sum of Four
Hundred Thirty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($438,750.00) (“REHABBERS
DOT”), and on December 31, 2012, caused said document to be recorded in the Los Angeles County
Recorder’s Office as Instrument No. 201212311050165. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and
thereon alleges that no money was loaned on this transaction as reflected in the REHABBERS DOT and
this was manufactured by the RICO DEFENDANTS for the purpose of obtaining additional monies using
the CALHOUN PROPERTY under false pretenses.

71. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about March 14, 2013,
the RICO DEFENDANTS created another false document entitled “Assignment of Deed of Trust”
assigning the REHABBERS DOT to Aztec T. D. Service Co. and recorded said document in Los Angeles
County Recorder’s Office as Instrument No. 20130391443 on March 14, 2013.

72. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about March 4, 2013,
the RICO DEFENDANTS created another false document entitled “Assignment of Deed of Trust”
assigning the REHABBERS DOT to Aztec T. D. Service Co. and recorded said document in Los Angeles

-19-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page106o0f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20068

County Recorder’s Office as Instrument No. 20130394279 on April 22, 2013.

73. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in or about February, 2013,
HARITUNIAN, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, K-ASTRON, A. AYVAZAN and DADYAN falsified bank
statements, a credit report, a loan application, employment information, and asset information for
YESAYAN to induce a lender into making a loan to this criminal enterprise. Moreover, PLAINTIFF is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that DAYDAN, TANDEM and ABRAHAMSON created a
false Real Estate Purchase Agreement (“PURCHASE AGREEMENT”) wherein it appeared as though
YESAYAN was purchasing the CALHOUN PROPERTY from SAHAKYAN for a purchase price of
Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand and Two Hundred and Sixty Dollars ($750,260.00). PLAINTIFF is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that A. AYVAZAWN signed the false real estate purchase
agreement and all of the information contained therein to fraudulently induce a lender into making a
purchase money loan to the RICO DEFENDANTS who used the CALHOUN PROPERTY as purported
security for the loan from Flagstar Bank (““FLAGSTAR”).

74. | Onor about April 3, 2013, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
the RICO DEFENDANTS, through TANDEM, submitted a loan application purportedly for the new
buyer/borrower, YESAYAN, to FLAGSTAR. Unbeknownst to FLAGSTAR, the loan application was
filled with false information about YESAYAN. Such information was submitted to FLAGSTAR for the
purpose of inducing FLAGSTAR into making a HUD loan to YESAYAN. Moreover, PLAINTIFF is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant A. AYVAZAN and the RICO DEFENDANTS
created false information including a credit reports, bank statements, a driver’s license, a social security
card, employment information, a social security number, and other pertinent information, for the purpose
of inducing FLAGSTAR into making the loan to YESAYAN for the benefit of the criminal enterprise
and the RICO DEFENDANTS. All of this fraudulent information was sent through the mail system, the
internet or by facsimile. Like the VOVK LOAN, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon
alleges that TANDEM, ABRAMSON, along with the RICO DEFENDANTS, falsely created an Equifax
Verification Services Taxpayer Tax Return Summary and other financial documents to make it appear as

though YESAYAN earned income sufficient to qualify for a loan from FLAGSTAR. PLAINTIFF is

-20-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page107of170 Page ID

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20069

informed and believes, and thereon alleges that all of the information provided to FLAGSTAR was false.

75. To further the RICO enterprise, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges
that the RICO DEFENDANTS, including DOES 14-50, as was their custom and practice on several
transactions, made up a telephone number and a false website for YESAYAN’s purported employer,
EBK Computer Solutions, when in fact, no such company has ever existed. PLAINTIFF is informed and
believes, and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS created telephone numbers that they would
answer to make it appear as though the employers were in fact real for these transactions. PLAINTIFF
is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS created this false
employment information in furtherance of their criminal enterprise to induce a lender into making a loan
to YESAYAN.

76. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that in April 19, 2013,
KABILAKEAS, K-ASTRON VENTURES dba KONSTANT CLOSINGS, and CIAS acted as the
escrow officer throughout the transaction. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
each of the RICO DEFENDANTS were part of the criminal enterprise, facilitated the fraud by making it
appear as though YESAYAN was a real borrower/buyer and that he made a deposit into escrow in the
sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) when in fact, YESAYAN never deposited any monies with
KONSTANT CLOSING and/or CIAS for the CALHOUN PROPERTY. PLAINTIFF is further informed
and believes, and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS, including K-ASTRON,
KABILAFAKAS, DADYAN, ARTHUR A. AYVAZAN thereafter falsely used the notary stamp of
Karen Albro (“‘“ALBRO”) and impersonated ALBRO as a notary on several documents they created
making it appear as though Albro had notarized the signatures of YESAYAN. PLAINTIFF is informed
and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS each knew that the notarizations on the
loan documents sent to FLAGSTAR were in fact false, and perpetrated the fraud by sending the loan
documents by U.S. mail, facsimile and the internet to FLAGSTAR.

77. In further of these predicate acts and in furtherance of the RICO enterprise, the RICO
DEFENDANTS, including presented FLAGSTAR with the false information they had manufactured,

including a social security number, address, employment information, tax information, credit reports,

-21-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page1080f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20070

banking information, a Driver’s License, and pertinent information, as well as the Purchase Agreement.

78. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that in reliance on all of this
information provided to FLAGSTAR, on or about June 28, 2013, FLAGSTAR funded a loan in the name
of YESAYAN in the sum of Six Hundred Eighty-One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty One Dollars
($681,721.00) (““FLAGSTAR LOAN”). At the time the FLAGSTAR LOAN was made, FLAGSTAR
reasonably relied upon the representations made by the RICO DEFENDANTS that were in fact false.
Moreover, YESAYAN allegedly signed a Note and a Deed of Trust securing the FLAGSTAR LOAN,
which was recorded in the Los Angeles Recorder’s Office as Instrument No. 20130961169 on June 28,
2013 against the CALHOUN PROPERTY (“FLAGSTAR DOT”).

79. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS
received the FLAGSTAR LOAN funds through wire fraud, and used the loan proceeds for themselves
and the criminal enterprise.

80. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about July 16, 2014,
FLAGSTAR conveyed all rights, title and interest in the FLAGSTAR LOAN and FLAGSTAR DOT to
Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (“CALIBER”), and an Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded on July 16,
2014 in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office as Instrument No. 20140731345. YESAYAN failed
to make any payments on the FLAGSTAR LOAN.

81. On or about September 12, 2014, CALIBER, through its trustee, QUALITY, recorded a
Notice of Default and Election to Sell under Deed of Trust in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office
as Instrument No. 20140965005. CALIBER and its Trustee were unable to make any contact with
YESAYAN.

82. On or about June 15, 2015, caliber, through its trustee, QUALITY, recorded a Notice of
Trustee’s Sale in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office as Instrument No. 20150705135.

83. PLAINTIFF is informed and thereon alleges that on November 4, 2016, TOWNSEND
filed a lawsuit for quiet title and fraud, among other causes of action, alleging that the SBMC TDUS was
fraudulent, and that the all liens encumbering the CALHOUN PROPERTY should be declared void.

84. Onor about February 6, 2017, PLAINTIFF paid CALIBER’s title insurance claim in the

-22-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page109o0f170 Page ID
#:20071

sum of Six Hundred Eighty One Thousand and Seven Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($681,721.00)

based upon the fraud in the chain of title. CALIBER thereafter assigned PLAINTIFF all beneficial

interest under the FLAGSTAR DOT together with all rights under the Note and FLAGSTAR DOT.
THE KINGSWELL PROPERTY

85. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about March 4, 2003,
A. AKOPYAN, or someone using the name A. AKOPYAN, purchased the KINGSWELL PROPERTY.

86. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that by July of 2005, A.
AKOPYAN had refinanced the KINGSWELL PROPERTY and obtained home equity lines of credit,
pursuant to which she took out approximately Three Hundred and Twenty Eight Thousand Dollars
($328,000.00) in equity for use by the RICO DEFENDANTS in the criminal enterprise, using the
KINGWELL PROPERTY as collateral.

87. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in August 2006, A.
AKOPYAN, with the assistance of VARTAN, refinanced the KINGSWELL PROPERTY yet again, and
obtained a Seven Hundred and Seventy Four Thousand Dollars ($774,000.00) first lien loan from
Countrywide Homes Loans, Inc. (“COUNTRYWIDE”) and a second lien deed of trust also in favor of
Countrywide, to secure a HELOC in the amount of Two Hundred and Forty Thousand Dollars
($240,000.00). The two COUNTRYWIDE deeds of trust were recorded on August 31, 2006 as
Instrument Nos. 061946828 and 061946829.

88. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that thereafter in 2006,
Countrywide transferred its interest in the first lien deed of trust into a securitized pool of loans over
which Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DEUTSCHE BANK ’’) was the then acting trustee
(“DEUTSCHE BANK DOT”).

89. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in or about December of
2010, A. AKOPYAN defaulted on the DEUTSCHE BANK DOT by failing to make payments on the
loan.

90. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that ReconTrust, as the trustee

under the DEUTSCHE BANK DOT, thereupon commenced a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding against

-23-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20072

the KINGSWELL PROPERTY by recording a Notice of Default and Election to Sell on December 29,
2010, as Instrument No. 20101927762.

91. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in and around March of
2011, the RICO DEFENDANTS, including DOES 14-50 managed to obtain yet another loan, even
though the KINGSWELL PRPOPERTY already was in foreclosure, that was secured by a third lien deed
of trust against the KINGSWELL PROPERTY, in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that such information was false and that no
money was loaned from Apex, but a lien was recorded against this property by the RICO DEFENDANTS
merely as part of the scheme to delay foreclosure and to collect monies from another lender through a
fraudulent refinance transaction. A third deed of trust in favor of Apex was recorded on March 1, 2011
as Instrument No. 20110315667.

92. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about October 13,
2011, ReconTrust as the Trustee handling the foreclosure sale on the first lien Deutsche Bank DOT,
caused to be published and recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale as Instrument No. 20111386524, thereby
scheduling a trustee’s sale of the KINGWELL PROPERTY for November 2, 2011.

93. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DADYAN, K-ASTRON,
KABILAFAKAS, CIAS, A. AYVAZYAN, TANDEM, ABRAMSON, and DOES 14-50 thereafter
agreed to record a falsified Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale against the Kingswell Property and make it appear
as though Capital Securities obtained title to the KINGSWELL PROPERTY through the recorded
Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the name
Capital Securities listed as the buyer at the foreclosure sale, was a manufactured entity associated with
the criminal enterprise and created by the RICO DEFENDANTS. Thereafter, Capital Securities
conveyed the KINGWELL PROPERTY to a synthetic person named EPRAKSI GEVORKIAN.

94. PLAINTIFF further is informed and believes an on that basis alleges that the RICO
DEENDANTS, including DADYAN, K-ASTRON, KABILAFAKAS, CIAS, A. AYVAZYAN,
TANDEM, ABRAMSON, CIAS, SECURELINE, and HARITUNIAN, thereafter created a false
purchase agreement to make it appear as though GEVORKIAN was selling the KINGSWELL

-24-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page111of170 Page ID

Oo Se NT DH

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PROPERTY to KARAPET EMBOYAN, another synthetic person, to induce an innocent lender,
Novastar, LLC (““NOVASTAR”), into making a purchase money loan to EMBOYAN.

95. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS
agreed that defendants DADYAN, K-ASTRON, KONSTANT CLOSINGS, KABILAKFAS, CIAS,
HARITUNIAN, SECURELINE, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50 would prepare false
documentation to obtain a purchase money loan in the amount of a Six Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand
and Five Hundred Dollars ($637,500.00) to be used in the criminal enterprise. PLAINTIFF is informed
and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS, specifically TANDEM,
ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50 drafted a false loan application making it appear as though defendant
EMBOYAN was applying for the loan. These Defendants created false employment information, false
asset statements, a manufactured identification, and other fraudulent documentation to induce a lender
into making the loan.

96. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that in furtherance of this
scheme, the RICO DEFENDANTS caused a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale (“LENDING WEST TDUS”) to
be recorded on March 29, 2012 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County as Instrument
No. 20120482852 purporting to eliminate the Deutsche Bank DOT. PLAINTIFF is informed and
believes and on that basis alleges that the LENDING WEST TDUS (falsely) states that: a non-judicial
foreclosure sale occurred on November 2, 2011 on the KINGSWELL PROPERTY; that Lending West
(“LENDING WEST”) was the highest bidder at the sale; that consideration was paid to the Trustee
(ReconTrust) and/or the beneficiary under the DEUTSCHE BANK DOT; that an Assistant Vice
President of ReconTrust signed the LENDING WEST TDUS; that the LENDING WEST TDUS was
notarized by Angelica A. Ortiz (“ORTIZ”); and that title of the KINGWELL PROPERTY was granted
to LENDING WEST. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that this information
was untrue.

97. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about June 22, 2012,
ReconTrust recorded a Notice of Rescission of Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale dated June 19, 2012 as

Instrument No. 20120929859, purporting to rescind the LENDING WEST TDUS by claiming it was

-25-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page1120f170 Page ID

10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20074

“recorded in error.” The Notice of Rescission of the LENDING WEST TDUS is purportedly notarized
by ORTIZ just as was the LENDING WEST TDUS. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon
alleges that the Notice of Rescission was created, executed and recorded by the same individuals and/or
entities that were responsible for the creation, execution and recordation of the LENDING WEST TDUS
and that for some unknown reason, those individuals wanted to place the KINGSWELL PROPERTY
title into the name of Capital Securities instead of the name of LENDING WEST.

98. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that several months later, on or
about September 20, 2012, the RICO DEFENDANTS caused a second Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale to be
recorded as Instrument No. 20121417127 (“FIRST CAPITAL SECURITIES TDUS”), purporting to
eliminate the DEUTSCHE BANK DOT. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges
that the FIRST CAPITAL SECURITIES TDUS states that a foreclosure sale was held on August 17,
2012 on the KINGSWELL PROPERTY; that Capital Securities was the highest bidder at the sale; that
consideration was paid to the Trustee (ReconTrust) and/or the beneficiary under the DEUTSCHE BANK
DOT; that an Assistant Vice President of ReconTrust signed the FIRST CAPITAL SECURITIES DOT;
that the FIRST CAPITAL SECURITIES DOT was notarized purportedly by Tracey A. Dominique; and
that title to the KINGSWELL PROPERTY was granted to Capital Securities.

99. | PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about December 28,
2012, the RICO DEFENDANTS caused a third Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale to be recorded as Instrument
No. 20122018962 (“SECOND CAPITAL SECURITIES TDUS”), again purporting to eliminate the
Deutsche Bank DOT. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the SECOND
CAPITAL SECURITIES TDUS states that a foreclosure sale was held on August 17, 2012 on the
KINGSWELL PROPERTY; that Capital Securities was the highest bidder at the sale; that consideration
was paid to the Trustee (ReconTrust) and/or the beneficiary under the Deutsche Bank DOT; that an
Assistant Vice President of ReconTrust signed the Second Capital Securities TDUS; that the SECOND
CAPITAL SECURITIES TDUS was notarized by C. M. Frazier; and that title to the KINGSWELL
PROPERTY was granted to Capital Securities.

100. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that all three false Trustee’s

-26-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page1130f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20075

Deeds Upon Sale were created, executed, and recorded by the RICO DEFENDANTS for the purpose of
furthering the foreclosure avoidance scheme to which A. AKOPYAN agreed and
consented. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that A. AKOPYAN benefitted and
gained time due to the RICO scheme because said actions delayed the foreclosure of the DEUTSCHE
BANK DOT and clouded and confused the KINGSWELL PROPERTY’s title. PLAINTIFF is informed
and believes and thereon alleges that the fraud scheme was known to, consented to, approved and ratified
by A. AKOPYAN and, therefore, she is a co-conspirator or aided and abetted the RICO scheme.

101. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that in furtherance of this
scheme, on or about January 23, 2013, the RICO DEFENDANTS recorded a Grant Deed dated December
18, 2012 in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office as Instrument Number 20130109934 purporting
to transfer title to the KINGSWELL PROPERTY to GEVORKIAN ( “GEVORKIAN GRANT DEED”).
The GEVORKIAN GRANT DEED states it was executed by YESAYAN, on behalf of Capital Securities,
and notarized by Vicki Le Mere. Similar to the fraud and RICO schemes with PLAINTIFF’s loan to
VOVK, PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that no notary witnessed the
signatures.

102. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that on or about January
23, 2013, the RICO DEENDANTS recorded a Deed of Trust dated January 7, 2013 in the Los Angeles
County Recorder’s Office as Instrument Number 20130109935, pursuant to which GEVORKIAN as
trustor, purported to convey a security interest in the KINGSWELL PROPERTY to La Costa Inc. as
trustee, and La Costa LLC, as lender (“LA COSTA DEED OF TRUST”). The LA COSTA DEED OF
TRUST states it was notarized by Deborah Arteaga, however PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and
thereon alleges, that no notary witnessed the signatures.

103. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in furtherance of the fraud
scheme, in or around December 2013, LBC Capital and Lending Bee, Inc. (“LENDING BEE”), as loan
brokers, contacted NOVASTAR and represented to NOVASTAR that they had a loan opportunity for
NOVASTAR with purported borrower EMBOYAN.

104. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in or around December

-27-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page1140f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20076

2013, defendants TANDEM MORTGAGE, DADYAN, SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, and DOES 14
through 50, conspired with LBC Capital and LENDING BEE to present false information to
NOVASTAR about defendant EMBOYAN’s income, employment, social security number,
identification, and assets.

105. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in furtherance of the fraud
scheme, in or around December 2013, LBC Capital and LENDING BEE, Inc. sent NOVASTAR
EMBOYAN’S purported loan application — including the false information about EMBOYAN’S income,
employment, social security number, identification, and assets for a loan to purchase the KINGSWELL
PROPERTY for Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand and Two Hundred and Twenty One
Dollars ($2,169,221.00), pursuant to a purchase agreement with GEVORKIAN, all fraudulently created
by the RICO DEFENDANTS.

106. PLAINTIFF further is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that in or around
December 2013, the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50, falsely represented to NOVASTAR that
EMBOYAN was purchasing the KINGSWELL PROPERTY and that EMBOYAN desired a purchase
money loan to be secured by the KINGSWELL PROPERTY.

107. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in reliance on the
fraudulently created documents that were provided to NOVASTAR to dupe into making a loan, on or
about December 5, 2013, NOVASTAR agreed to loan EMBOYAN Six Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand
and Five Hundred Dollars ($637,500.00) (““NOVASTAR LOAN”).

108. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the NOVASTAR LOAN is
evidenced by a Note dated December 5, 2013 in favor of NOVASTAR, as lender, and signed by the
RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 in the name of EMBOYAN, as borrower, in the principal
amount of Six Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($637,500.00) “NOVASTAR
NOTE”).

109. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the NOVASTAR NOTE
was secured by a Deed of Trust allegedly signed by EMBOYAN, and conveying to NOVASTAR a
security interest in the KINGSWELL PROPERTY (“NOVASTAR DEED OF TRUST”). PLAINTIFF

-28-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page1150f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20077

is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the NOVASTAR DEED OF TRUST states it was
notarized by Stacy A. Lim, but that no notary witnessed the signatures.

110. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis that on or about December 18,
2013, NOVASTAR funded the NOVASTAR LOAN by wiring Six Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand and
Five Hundred Dollars ($637,500.00) to a Bank of America account for KONSTANT CLOSINGS, which
acted as the purported escrow servicing company for the NOVASTAR LOAN like the VOVK SALES
TRANSACTION and PLAINTIFF.

111. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant CIAS acting as
SIMON, held herself out as the escrow officer for KONSTANT CLOSINGS. PLAINTIFF is informed
and believes and thereon alleges that pursuant to the written escrow instructions, defendant CIAS acting
as SIMON, on behalf of the RICO DEFENDANTS and defendant K-ASTRON DBA KONSTANT
CLOSINGS, agreed and represented that EMBOYAN was purchasing the KINGSWELL PROPERTY
from GEVORKIAN pursuant to a fictitious residential purchase agreement, title to the KINGSWELL
PROPERTY would be vested in EMBOYAN, NOVASTAR would receive a first priority deed of trust
against the KINGSWELL PROPERTY, and all existing liens would be satisfied prior to recording.

112. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that CIAS, K-ASTRON and
KONSTANT CLOSINGS knew that the notarizations on the loan documents sent to NOVASTAR were
in fact false, and perpetrated the fraud by sending such documents to NOVASTAR.

113. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges on that basis allege that the Final
Settlement Statement provided to NOVASTAR by KONSTANT CLOSINGS stated that Five Hundred
Fifty One Thousand and Thirty Five Dollars and Fifty Six Cents ($551,035.56) of the sale proceeds would
be used to pay off an existing first mortgage on the KINGSWELL PROPERTY.

114. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS
made the above-described misrepresentations to NOVASTAR for the purpose of immediately disbursing
the NOVASTAR LOAN proceeds wired into the fraudulent account obtained by false pretenses so that
once when the fraud scheme was detected, no monies would be left in the account where the monies were

wired.

-29-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
i
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page116o0f170 Page ID
#:20078

115. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that beginning in April, 2014
and continuing thereafter, EMBOYAN defaulted on the NOVASTAR NOTE and Deed of Trust by
failing to make monthly payments and failing to pay the NOVASTAR NOTE in full when it came due.

116. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that to perpetrate the fraud even
further, the RICO DEFENDANTS, including DADYAN, falsified a death certificate purporting to be
that of EMBOYAN and indicating he had died in Armenia in March 2014. PLAINTIFF is informed and
believes and thereon alleges that in or around July, 2014, LENDING BEE sent NOVASTAR the falsified
death certificate, purportedly obtained by DADYAN.

117. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the death certificate of
defendant EMBOYAN is false because EMBOYAN and/or the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50
took out at least one additional loan secured by an unrelated property after his purported death.

118. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that NOVASTAR subsequently
commenced nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings, and on February 29, 2016, S.B.S. Trust Deed Network,
as trustee, conducted a trustee’s sale of the KINGSWELL PROPERTY, at which the KINGSWELL
PROPERTY reverted to NOVASTAR upon its credit bid.

119. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about October 7,
2015, A. AKOPYAN and VARTAN commenced Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC597238,
entitled Akopyan v. Yesayan, in which they allege that the NOVASTAR DEED OF TRUST and Trustee’s
Deed Upon Sale are void. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about
May 17, 2016, DEUTSCHE BANK filed a cross-complaint in Akopyan v. Yesayan, alleging it holds a
first priority lien against the KINGSWELL PROPERTY and further that the NOVASTAR DEED OF
TRUST and Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale are void. Plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of Six Hundred
Thirty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars ($637,500.00) as it was damaged due to the fraud.

THE CATALINA PROPERTY

120. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges, that at and around this

same time period, similar foreclosure avoidance related documents were being recorded in connection

with another real property that A. AKOPYAN and VARTAN also owned, the CATALINA PROPERTY.

-30-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page117of170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20079

PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that all of the RICO DEFENDANTS were involved in this fraud
scheme involving the CATALINA PROPERTY, and used both of these properties in the criminal
enterprise.

121. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about February 13,
1998, A. AKOPYAN and VARTAN, purchased the CATALINA PROPERTY.

122. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in August 2006, A.
AKOPYAN, with the assistance of VARTAN, refinanced the CATALINA PROPERTY and obtained a
One Million and Eight Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollar ($1,820,000.00) first lien loan from
Countrywide (“COUNTRYWIDE DOT”) and a Seven Hundred and Ninety Thousand Dollar
($790,000.00) second lien deed of trust also in favor of COUNTRYWIDE. The two COUNTRYWIDE
deeds of trust were recorded on September 6, 2006 as Instrument Nos. 06 1984919 and 06 1984920.

123. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that A. AKOPYAN
subsequently defaulted on the COUNTRYWIDE DOT by failing to make payments on the loan.

124. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that ReconTrust, as the trustee
under the COUNTRY WIDE DOT, thereupon commenced a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding against
the CATALINA PROPERTY by recording a Notice of Default and Election to Sell on November 3, 2011
as Instrument No. 20111492061.

125. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that prior to any scheduled
foreclosure sale, and in furtherance of the fraud scheme described herein, A. AKOPYAN transferred title
to the CATALINA PROPERTY to herself, her husband Sogomon, and her son, VARTAN pursuant to a
Grant Deed recorded on November 15, 2011 as Instrument No. 20111544830. PLAINTIFF is informed
and believes and thereon alleges, that this transfer of title by A. AKOPYAN and VARTAN was, as with
the KINGSWELL PROPERTY, the beginning of a variety of devices the criminal enterprise used, as
identified above, including without limitation, the filing of a series of individual bankruptcies to delay
the foreclosure process.

126. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about February 13,

2013, ReconTrust as the Trustee handling the foreclosure sale on the first lien Countrywide DOT, caused

-31-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page118o0f170 Page ID
#:20080

to be published and recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale as Instrument No. 20130231038, thereby
scheduling a trustee’s sale of the CATALINA PROPERTY for March 8, 2013.

127. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Sage Point Lender Services,
as the trustee under the COUNTRYWIDE DOT, recorded a second Notice of Default and Election to
Sell on September 16, 2014 as Instrument No. 20140974233.

128. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that on or about January 23,
2015, Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP as the Trustee handling the foreclosure sale on the
first lien COUNTRYWIDE DOT, caused to be published and recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale as
Instrument No. 20150079285, thereby scheduling a trustee’s sale of the CATALINA PROPERTY for
February 20, 2015.

129. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in furtherance of the RICO
DEFENDANTS’ fraudulent scheme, the RICO DEFENDANTS caused a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale to
be recorded on June 25, 2015 in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office as Instrument Number
20150760976 (“RA STERLING TDUS”), purporting to eliminate the Countrywide DOT. PLAINTIFF
is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the RA STERLING TDUS (falsely) states that: a
non-judicial foreclosure sale occurred on June 3, 2015 on the CATALINA PROPERTY; that RA Sterling
Investments & Holdings (“RA STERLING”) was the highest bidder at the sale; that consideration was
paid to the Trustee (Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP) and/or the beneficiary under the
Countrywide DOT; that an Associate Director of Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP signed
the RA STERLING TDUS; that the RA STERLING TDUS was notarized by William D. Owns; and that
title was transferred to RA STERLING.

130. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that the RA STERLING TDUS
was created, executed, and recorded for the purpose of furthering the foreclosure avoidance scheme to
which A. AKOPYAN agreed and consented. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges
that A. AKOPYAN benefitted and gained time due to the RICO scheme because said actions delayed the
foreclosure of the COUNTRYWIDE DOT and clouded and confused the CATALINA PROPERTY’s

title. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the fraud scheme was known to,

-32-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

o CO NN DN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page119o0f170 Page ID
#:20081

consented to, approved and ratified by A. AKOPYAN.

131. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in furtherance of the RICO
DEFENDANTS’ fraudulent scheme, on August 14, 2015, RA STERLING purportedly conveyed the
CATALINA PROPERTY to defendant GEVORKIAN via Grant Deed dated July 21, 2015, and recorded
in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office as Instrument Number 20150997509.

132. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in furtherance of the RICO
DEFENDANTS’ fraudulent scheme, on or about August 14, 2015, Defendant GEVORKIAN recorded a
Deed of Trust in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office as Instrument Number 20150997511 (“RA
STERLING DEED OF TRUST”) in favor of RA STERLING. The RA STERLING DEED OF TRUST
conveyed a secured interest in the CATALINA PROPERTY, securing a loan in the amount of Five
Hundred Thousand and Seven Hundred Dollars ($500,700.00) (‘RA STERLING LOAN”). PLAINTIFF
is informed and believes that the proceeds of the RA STERLING LOAN were used by the RICO
DEFENDANTS in furtherance of the fraud scheme.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE OF AN INTEREST IN AND CONTROL OF AN
ENTERPRISE ENGAGED IN A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY: 18 U.S.C. §§
1961(5), 1962(B) -- AGAINST DADYAN, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE, KABILAFAKAS, CIAS,
A. AYVAZYAN, ANDIA, HARITUNIAN, AVITIKIAN, and DOES 14-50)

133. PLAINTIFF now re-alleges each and every allegation as set forth above in paragraphs 1
through 132 and hereby incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.

134. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that DADYAN, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, KABILAFAKAS, CIAS, A. AYVAZYAN, ANDIA, HARITUNIAN, and AVITIKIAN
acquired and/or maintained, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of a RICO enterprise of
individuals who were associated in fact and who did engage in, and whose activities did affect, interstate
and foreign commerce, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(4), (5), (9), and 1962(b).

135. During the three (3) calendar years preceding the filing of the Second Amended

-33-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page120o0f170 Page ID
#:20082

Complaint, Defendant DADYAN, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE, KABILAFAKAS, CIAS, A.
AYVAZYAN, ANDIA, HARITUNIAN, AVITIKIAN, and DOES 14-50 did cooperate jointly and
severally in the commission of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts that is itemized in the RICO
laws at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1)(A) and (B), and did so in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b),
as alleged in paragraphs | through 132 herein.

136. Plaintiff further alleges that the DADYAN, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE,
KABILAFAKAS, CIAS, A. AYVAZYAN, ANDIA, HARITUNIAN, AND AVITIKIAN and DOES 14-
50 did commit two (2) or more of the offenses itemized above in a manner which they calculated and
premeditated intentionally to threaten continuity; i.e., a continuing threat of their respective racketeering
activities, also in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b). The RICO DEFENDANTS designed
a complete fraud scheme to derive income and properties through the criminal enterprise outlined herein.
The racketeering activity constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity in an interstate enterprise.

137. Under the Doctrine of Respondent Superior, DADYAN, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE,
KABILAFAKAS, CIAS, A. AYVAZYAN, ANDIA, HARITUNIAN, AND AVITIKIAN and DOES 14-
50 are liable for their agents’ misconduct, knowledge of, participation in, and benefit from a RICO
enterprise.

138. As a direct and proximate result of the DADYAN, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE,
KABILAFAKAS, CIAS, A. AYVAZYAN, ANDIA, HARITUNIAN, AND AVITIKIAN, and DOES
14-50’s racketeering activities and violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), PLAINTIFF has been damaged in
an amount to be proven at trial, not less than Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Two
Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00).

Hl

-34-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20083

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(CONDUCT AND PARTICIPATION IN A RICO ENTERPRISE THROUGH A PATTERN OF
RACKETEERING ACTIVITY: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(C) -- AGAINST DADYAN,
K-ASTRON, SECURELINE, KABILAFAKAS, CIAS, A. AYVAZYAN, ANDIA, HARITUNIAN,
TANDEM, ABRAMSON, AVITIKIAN, and DOES 14-50)

139. Plaintiff now re-alleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 138 as set
forth above, and hereby incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.

140. At various times and places, the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 did associate
with a RICO enterprise of individuals who were associated in fact, and who engaged in, and whose
activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce.

141. Likewise, all RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 did conduct and/or participate,
either directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of said RICO enterprise through a pattern of
racketeering activity, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(4), (5), (9), and 1962(c).

142. During the three (3) calendar years prior to this Second Amended Complaint, all RICO
DEFENDANTS did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of two (2) or more of the RICO
predicate acts that is itemized in the RICO laws at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1)(A) and (B), and did so in
violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(c).

143. PLAINTIFF further alleges that all the RICO DEFENDANTS did commit two (2) or more
of the offenses itemized above in a manner which they calculated and premeditated intentionally to
damage the PLAINTIFF and their conduct continues to threaten PLAINTIFF, the title and lending
industry; 1.e., a continuing threat of their respective racketeering activities, also in violation of the RICO
law at 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).

144. As a direct and proximate result of the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50
racketeering activities and violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 and 1962, PLAINTIFF has been damaged in
an amount to be proven at trial, not less than Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Two

Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00).

-35-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page122o0f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20084

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(CONSPIRACY TO ENGAGE IN A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY: 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961(5), 1962(D) -- AGAINST THE RICO DEFENDANTS AND DOES 14-50)

145. Plaintiff now re-alleges each and every allegations in paragraphs 1 through 144, as set
forth above, and hereby incorporates same by reference, as if all were set forth fully herein.

146. At various times and places partially enumerated in PLAINTIFF’s documentary material,
all RICO DEFENDANTS did conspire to acquire and maintain an interest in a RICO enterprise engaged
in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(b) and (d).

147. At various times and places, including Studio City, California, the RICO DEFENDANTS
did also conspire to conduct and participate in said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering
activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d).

148. During the three (3) calendar years preceding the filing of this Second Amended
Complaint, the defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of two (2) or more of
the predicate acts that are itemized at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1)(A) and (B), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d).

149. PLAINTIFF further alleges that all defendants did commit two (2) or more of the offenses
itemized above in a manner which they calculated and premeditated intentionally to threaten continuity;
i.e., a continuing threat of their respective racketeering activities, also in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).

150. Asa proximate result of the Defendants racketeering activities and violations of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961 and 1962, PLAINTIFF has been injured in its business and financially damaged in an amount of
Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00).

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(CONVERSION -- AGAINST THE RICO DEFENDANTS AND DOES 14-50, INCLUSIVE)
151. PLAINTIFF refers to and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained in
paragraphs 1 through 150 above as though fully set forth herein.
152. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that RICO DEFENDANTS

and DOES 14-50 transferred a part or all of the wrongfully obtained monies from PLAINTIFF, caused

-36-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page123 0f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20085

said monies to be delivered into a Bank of America account [xxxx1364] (“BofA ACCOUNT”), and that
the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 are now holding the fraudulently obtained monies from
PLAINTIFF in other accounts controlled and/or owned by the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50,
or said monies have been used to acquire other assets presently held and/or controlled by the RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50.

153. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the RICO DEFENDANTS
and DOES 14-50 have wrongfully converted PLAINTIFF’s funds in the amount of in excess of Two
Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00),
which sum the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 were not entitled to receive. PLAINTIFF is
informed and believes and thereon alleges that RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 intentionally
perpetrated their fraudulent scheme in an effort to defraud PLAINTIFF and others. As a result,
PLAINTIFF has been damaged in an amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand
Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any further amounts to be proven at trial.

154. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in doing the acts and things
alleged herein, the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 were guilty of fraud, oppression, and malice
and acted in wanton and willful disregard of the rights of PLAINTIFF and others, and by reason thereof,
PLAINTIFF is entitled to exemplary or punitive damages against the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES
14-50 in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-
50. The RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 fraudulently obtained PLAINTIFF’S funds for the
RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 own use and benefit to PLAINTIFF’s detriment.

155. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS
and DOES 14-50 intended to transfer, convey, distribute, disburse, or otherwise utilize the monies in the
BofA ACCOUNT and other banking accounts that was converted and misappropriated by the RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50, so that PLAINTIFF would be unable to compel the return of its funds,
unless the Court enjoins the transfer or conveyance of any and all funds held in the RICO DEFENDANTS
and DOES 14-50’s other accounts.

156. PLAINTIFF has no adequate remedy at law to protect itself as PLAINTIFF will be

-37-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page124o0f170 Page ID
#:20086

irreparably damaged by further transfer, conveyance, or distribution of the misappropriated monies and,
therefore, request a temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunction enjoining any transfer,
conveyance, distribution, payment, or other disbursement or distribution of the misappropriated monies
previously held in the BofA Account, and now in the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50’s other
accounts, until this litigation is completed.

157. In alternative to general and compensatory damages, PLAINTIFF is informed and
believes and thereon alleges that if PLAINTIFF’s funds are not recovered, the RICO DEFENDANTS
and DOES 14-50 will be unjustly enriched in the sum of at least Two Million dollars ($2,169,221.00)
and any additional amounts as according to proof at trial.

158. PLAINTIFF is therefore entitled to recover as restitution from these RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 the sum of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand
Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) together with prejudgment interest thereon as
allowed by law, and any additional amounts as according to proof at trial, so as to prevent these the RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 from being unjustly enriched through fraud and forgery.

159. PLAINTIFF additionally is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under the tort of another
doctrine, as PLAINTIFF was required to file a lawsuit to recover PLAINTIFF’s funds because of the
RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50’s tortious conduct.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(CLAIM AND DELIVERY -- AGAINST THE RICO DEFENDANTS AND DOES 14-50)

160. PLAINTIFF refers to and incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 159
above as though fully set forth herein.

161. Based upon the fraud scheme as alleged in paragraphs 1 through 132 above, and fully
incorporated herein, the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50, feloniously and fraudulently took the
VOVK LOAN proceeds and CALHOUN LOAN Proceeds from the purported sales of the CAMINO
PROPERTY and the CALHOUN PROPERTY.

162. From April 19, 2013 until approximately October 13, 2016 UNITED ESCROW, K-

-38-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page125o0f170 Page ID
#:20087

ASTRON DBA KONSTANT CLOSINGS and DOES 14-50 served as escrow companies and disbursed
to the RICO DEFENDANTS the PLAINTIFF’s funds that were wrongfully obtained in excess of Two
Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00).
PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in excess of Two Million One Hundred
Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) from this total sum was
wired into the RICO DEFENDANTS’s banking accounts, including a Bank of America Account, in the
name of AVAKIAN/ESCROW DOC and/or DOES 14-50.

163. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that on or about October 7, 2016, the RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50, have further fraudulently converted PLAINTIFF’s funds by
transferring the approximate Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty
One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) out of the BofA ACCOUNT as wells as other accounts, and into other
banking accounts held for the RICO DEFENDANTS’ own use and benefit, and as a result, they have
been unjustly enriched to PLAINTIFF’s detriment. Moreover, the other monies fraudulently obtained
were disbursed by cash and checks to the RICO DEFENDANTS.

164. PLAINTIFF alleges that PLAINTIFF’s funds were wrongfully taken from PLAINTIFF
through fraud and forgery. PLAINTIFF hereby makes a claim to all funds held by the RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50’s accounts, and/or assets purchased with PLAINTIFF’s funds, and
demands delivery of all monies in said account or in any account where PLAINTIFF’s funds are located.

165. Based on the actions of the RICO DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF has been damaged in the
amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One
Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any further amounts based upon proof at trial.

166. In alternative to general and compensatory damages, PLAINTIFF is informed and
believes and thereon alleges that if PLAINTIFF’s funds are not recovered, the RICO DEFENDANTS
and DOES 14-50 will be unjustly enriched in the sum of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine
Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any additional amounts as
according to proof at trial.

167. PLAINTIFF is therefore entitled to recover as restitution from the RICO DEFENDANTS

-39-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page126o0f170 Page ID
#:20088

and DOES 14-50 the sum of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and
Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) together with prejudgment interest thereon as allowed by law, and
any additional amounts as according to proof at trial, so as to prevent these Defendants and DOES 14-50

from being unjustly enriched through fraud and forgery.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(FRAUD — INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
AGAINST THE RICO DEFENDANTS AND DOES 14-50, INCLUSIVE)
169. PLAINTIFF refers to and incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 168
above as though fully set forth herein.
170. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS,
and DOES 14-50, made certain intentional misrepresentations to PLAINTIFF, knowing such
representations were false, to induce PLAINTIFF into making a loan to the RICO DEFENDANTS using
false names and fabricated information. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that
from April, 2013 until October 13, 2016, the RICO DEFENDANTS aided and abetted each other and
made the following misrepresentations in falsified documents submitted to PLAINTIFF among others,
as follows:
a) Purchase Agreements reflecting valid real estate transactions created by DADYAN,
HARITUNIAN, SECURELINE, ANUSH, YSAYAN, SAHAKYAN, ABRAMSON,
TANDEM MORTGAGE, and K-ASTRON;

b) Loan Applications representing that the borrowers VOVK and YESAYAN had sufficient
credit, assets and employment, created by DADYAN, HARITUNIAN, SECURELINE,
ANUSH, YESAYAN, SAHAKYAN, ABRAMSON, TANDEM MORTGAGE,
AVAKIAN, VOVK, MJF FUNDING; AKOPYAN, KARAPET EMBOYAN, and K-
ASTRON;

c) False Social Security Numbers created by MJF, DADYAN, HARITUNIAN,
SECURELINE, ANUSH, YESAYAN, SAHAKYAN, ABRAMSON, TANDEM

-40-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

d)

g)

h)

j)

k)

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page127o0f170 Page ID

#:20089

MORTGAGE, AVAKIAN, VOVK, MJF FUNDING, AKOPYAN, GEVORKIAN, and
K-ASTRON;

False Employment information created by MJF, DADYAN, HARITUNIAN,
SECURELINE, ANUSH, YESAYAN, SAHAKYAN, ABRAMSON, TANDEM
MORTGAGE, AVAKIAN, VOVK, MJF FUNDING; AKOPYAN, GEVORKIAN,
EMBOYAN, and K-ASTRON;

Banking Account Information created by MJF, DADYAN, HARITUNIAN,
SECURELINE, ANUSH, YESAYAN, SAHAKYAN, ABRAMSON, TANDEM
MORTGAGE, AVAKIAN, VOVK, MJF FUNDING, AKOPYAN, and K-ASTRON;
Statements of Assets created by MJF, DADYAN, HARITUNIAN, SECURELINE,
ANUSH, YESAYAN, SAHAKYAN, ABRAMSON, TANDEM MORTGAGE,
AVAKIAN, VOVK, MJF FUNDING, AKOPYAN, EMBOYAN, and K-ASTRON;
False Driver’s licenses by MJF, DADYAN, HARITUNIAN, SECURELINE, ANUSH,
YESAYAN, SAHAKYAN, ABRAMSON, TANDEM MORTGAGE, AVAKIAN,
VOVK, MJF FUNDING, AKOPYAN, and K-ASTRON;

The VOVK and YESAYAN false DEEDS OF TRUST prepared by DADYAN,
HARITUNIAN, SECURELINE, ANDIA, and DOES 14-50;

The ARGENT TDUS and FIRST SMBC TDUS prepared by ESCALERA, DADYAN,
HARITUNIAN, SECURELINE, and DOES 14-50;

The false ASSIGNMENTS by ATI, TI, KAPEMIAN, VARTAN, DADYAN,
HARITUNIAN, SECURELINE, DADYAN, MJF, TANDEM, AVAKIAN, and K-
ASTRON;

False escrow instructions created by DADYAN, VARTAN, SECURELINE,
HARITUNIAN, MJF, KAPEMYAN, KABILAFKAS, CIAS, K-ASTRON and
AVAKIAN;

False information about deposits into escrow by DADYAN, VARTAN, SECURELINE,
HARITUNIAN, MJF, K-ASTRON, AVAKIAN, NAKSHCHYAN, ANDIA, and

-4]-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page128o0f170 Page ID
#:20090

KABILAKFAS; and,

m) False representations about the existence of the borrower, by MJF, DADYAN,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, TANDEM, ABRAMSON, A. AYVAZAN, and DOES
14-50.

171. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the RICO DEFENDANTS
and DOES 14-50 and each of them, from September 1, 2016 through October 13, 2016 presented
PLAINTIFF with these falsified documents and falsified information outlined above, and concealed and
misrepresented material facts including the statements that: Defendant ATI and its president and majority
shareholder, AT, obtained title to the PROPERTY through a valid trustee’s sale; that ATI and AT were
owners of the PROPERTY; that ATI and AT were lawfully in possession of the PROPERTY, which
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, and DADYAN listed for sale; that ATI and AT contracted with VOVK
for the sale of the PROPERTY; that VOVK was a real buyer of the property; that MJF was the loan
broker for VOVK and the company had vetted the VOVK application; that PLAINTIFF’s funds would
be used to purchase the PROPERTY; that PLAINTIFF would be able to secure PLAINTIFF’s funds with
a deed of trust against the PROPERTY; that no other deeds of trust or mortgages encumbered the
PROPERTY; that PLAINTIFF’s funds would be used for a lawful purpose; and that ATI and AT, and
DOES 14-50 were to entitled to receive PLAINTIFF’s funds as part of the VOVK SALES
TRANSACTION. The U.S. Mail and wires were used the RICO DEFENDANTS in furtherance of this
fraud scheme.

172. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the RICO DEFENDANTS
and DOES 14-50 and each of them, also from April 1 through April 30, 2013 presented PLAINTIFF
with falsified documents and falsified information outlined above, and concealed and misrepresented
material facts including the statements that:

a) SAHAKYAN MANAGEMENT and ABRAMSON obtained title to the CALHOUN
PROPERTY by a grant deed prepared by DADYAN, VARTAN, SECURELINE,
HARITUNIAN, A. AYVAZAN TANDEM MORTGAGE, and CIAS;

b) SAHAKYAN MANAGEMENT and ABRAMSON were the legal owners of the

-42-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page1290f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

d)

g)

h)

#:20091

CALHOUN PROPERTY by DADYAN, VARTAN, SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN,
TANDEM MORTGAGE, and CIAS;

YESAYN and SAHAKYAN MANAGEMENT through ABRAMSON lawfully
contracted for the sale of the CALHOUN PROPERTY by DADYAN, VARTAN,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ABRAMSON, TANDEM MORTGAGE, PARENT,
YESAYAN, KONSTANT CLOSINGS, and SIMON;

YESAYN was a real buyer of the CALHOUN PROPERTY by DADYAN, VARTAN,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ABRAMSON, TANDEM MORTGAGE, PARENT,
YESAYAN, KONSTANT CLOSINGS, and SIMON;

TANDEM MORTGAGE and ABRAMSON confirmed the truthfulness of the borrower’s
information on the YESAYAN loan application;

The lender’s funds would be used to purchase the CALHOUN PROPERTY from a valid
seller — misrepresented by DADYAN, VARTAN, SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, A.
AYVAZYAN, TANDEM MORTGAGE, K-ASTRON, ABRAMSON, and CIAS;

That PLAINTIFF would be able to secure its loan funds with a deed of trust against the
CALHOUN PROPERTY by DADYAN, VARTAN, SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN,
ABRAMSON, TANDEM MORTGAGE, K-ASTRON, and CIAS;

No other deeds of trust or mortgages encumbered the CALHOUN PROPERTY as
represented by DADYAN, VARTAN, SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, A. AYVAZAN
TANDEM, K-ASTRON, and CIAS;

The PLAINTIFF’s funds would be used for a lawful purpose by DADYAN, VARTAN,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, A. AYVAZAN, TANDEM MORTGAGE, K-
ASTRON, CIAS, and KABILAFIKAS; and

ABRAMSON, SAHAKYAN and DOES 14-50 were to entitled to receive PLAINTIFF’s
funds as part of the CALHOUN Sales Transaction by DADYAN, VARTAN,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, A. AYVAZAN, TANDEM MORTGAGE, Kk-
ASTRON, and CIAS.

-43-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page1300f170 Page ID

Oo CO NT DH

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20092

173. PLAINTIFF further is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO
DEFENDANTS and each of them, on or about October 13, 2016 sent false e-mails to UNITED ESCROW
impersonating the name of Elizabeth Daviz and ESCROW DOC, and supplied false information about
an alleged assignment of funds between VOVK and ATI; a false purchase agreement between ATI, AT,
and KAPEMYAN (executed by such parties); and false wiring instructions to convert the VOVK LOAN
funds to their own use and benefit by using UNITED ESCROW as a conduit for the monies. PLAINTIFF
is informed and believes and thereon alleges that SIMON, CONSTANT CLOSINGS, and
KABILAKFAS also were used as a conduit of wrongfully obtained monies in the CALHOUN matter.

174. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that RICO DEFENDANTS, and
each of them including DOES 14-50 made all of the above false statements to PLAINTIFF for the purpose
of inducing PLAINTIFF to fund the VOVK, CALHOUN and KINGSWELL LOANS so they could
fraudulently obtain the LOAN funds for the RICO DEFENDANTS’ own use and benefit, to the detriment
of PLAINTIFF. The RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 knew that PLAINTIFF would review and
rely upon the representations they provided to PLAINTIFF.

175. At the time these representations occurred, PLAINTIFF was ignorant of the falsity of the
representations of the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 and PLAINTIFF reasonably relied on
these representations in funding the VOVK LOAN.

176. As a direct and proximate result of the material misrepresentations by the RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50, PLAINTIFF has suffered general and compensatory damages in
amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One
Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and further amounts according to proof at trial.

177. The conspiracy, concealment, and intentional misrepresentations by the RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 were done with malice, oppression and/or fraud. Thus, PLAINTIFF is
entitled to recover exemplary and punitive damages in an amount according to proof.

178. In alternative to general and compensatory damages, PLAINTIFF is informed and
believes and thereon alleges that if PLAINTIFF’s funds are not recovered, the RICO DEFENDANTS
and DOES 14-50 will be unjustly enriched in the sum of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine

-44.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page131o0f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20093

Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00), and any additional amounts as
according to proof at trial, and PLAINTIFF should be entitled to recover such funds.

179. PLAINTIFF is therefore entitled to recover as restitution from these RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 the sum of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand
Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00), together with prejudgment interest thereon as
allowed by law, and any additional amounts as according to proof at trial, so as to prevent these RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 from being unjustly enriched through fraud and forgery.

180. PLAINTIFF additionally is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under the tort of another
doctrine, as PLAINTIFF was required to file a lawsuit to recover PLAINTIFF’s Funds because of RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50’s tortious conduct.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD -- AGAINST THE RICO
DEFENDANTS AND DOES 14-50, INCLUSIVE)

181. PLAINTIFF refers to and incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 180, as
though fully set forth herein.

182. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in or about February, 2016,
the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50, and collectively agreed to defraud PLAINTIFF as alleged
herein.

183. Pursuant to the fraud scheme and agreement, from February 2016, the RICO
DEFENDANTS acted in furtherance of this conspiracy by making false statements to PLAINTIFF to
induce it to fund the VOVK LOAN transaction. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon
alleges, as set forth in paragraphs 1 through 150, these RICO DEFENDANTS acted in furtherance of the
conspiracy to defraud PLAINTIFF by making false statements to induce PLAINTIFF to close the VOVK
LOAN transaction and the PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that the defendants
falsified documents and presented them to PLAINTIFF; concealed and misrepresented material facts to

PLAINTIFF for the VOVK SALES TRANSACTION, including a false loan application, false statements

-45-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page132o0f170 Page ID
#:20094

that: Defendant ATI and its president and majority shareholder, AT, obtained title to the CAMINO
PROPERTY through a valid trustee’s sale; that ATI and AT were owners of the CAMINO PROPERTY;
that ATI and Timirova were lawfully in possession of the CAMINO PROPERTY, which the RICO
DEFENDANTS listed for sale; that ATI contracted with the buyer VOVK for the VOVK sale transaction;
that VOVK was a real buyer; that VOVK made a down payment on the CAMINO PROPERTY; that
VOVK’s social security number was valid; that VOVK’s employment history was valid; that VOVK’s
information on the loan application was all true; that a falsified identification presented to PLAINTIFF
was in fact valid; that PLAINTIFF’s funds would be used to purchase the CAMINO PROPERTY; that
PLAINTIFF would be able to secure the VOVK LOAN with a deed of trust against the CAMINO
PROPERTY; that no other deeds of trust or mortgages encumbered the CAMINO PROPERTY; that
PLAIJNTIFF’s funds would be used for a lawful purpose; that ATI and DOES 14-50 were to entitled to
receive PLAINTIFF’s funds as part of the VOVK Sales Transaction; that ATI was entitled to the VOVK
LOAN funds and that a real estate purchase agreement existed for the Burbank Property between ATI
and KAPEMYAN; and that the BofA ACCOUNT was for an escrow account and not a criminal
enterprise.

184. Asadirect and proximate result of the conspiracy to defraud PLAINTIFF and the RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 and steps in furtherance, PLAINTIFF has suffered general and
compensatory damages in amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Two
Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00), and further amounts according to proof at trial.

185. The conspiracy, concealment, and intentional misrepresentations by the RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 were done with malice, oppression, and/or fraud. Thus, PLAINTIFF
is entitled to recover exemplary and punitive damages in an amount according to proof.

186. In alternative to general and compensatory damages, PLAINTIFF is informed and
believes and thereon alleges that if PLAINTIFF’s funds are not recovered, the RICO DEFENDANTS
and DOES 14-50 will be unjustly enriched in the sum of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine
Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00), and any additional amounts as
according to proof at trial, and PLAINTIFF should be entitled to recover such funds.

-46-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page133 o0f170 Page ID
#:20095

187. PLAINTIFF alternatively are entitled to recover as restitution from these RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 the sum of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand
Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00), together with prejudgment interest thereon as
allowed by law, and any additional amounts as according to proof at trial, so as to prevent these RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 from being unjustly enriched through fraud and forgery.

188. PLAINTIFF additionally asserts that certain real property, personal property, checking
accounts, savings accounts, and brokerage accounts were funded and/or tainted with the funds converted
by the RICO DEFENDANTS, and each of them, with VOVK’s LOAN funds and the CALHOUN loan
funds. PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that real properties were
acquired, refinanced, maintained, enhanced, improved, or retained by the RICO DEFENDANTS, and
each of them by using the funds they had converted pursuant to the fraud scheme. PLAINTIFF seeks
and is entitled to have impressed an involuntary constructive trust over any and all banking, checking,
savings and brokerage accounts; any and all personal property; and any and all real properties held by
the RICO DEFENDANTS, and each of them, that were funded, tainted, acquired, refinanced, enhanced,
maintained, improved or retained by the RICO DEFENDANTS, and each of them, including any and all
direct product, profit, fruit or enhanced values thereof to which the converted funds can be traced
(“CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ASSETS”). PLAINTIFF seeks and is entitled to have impressed the
involuntary constructive trust over the CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ASSETS as an equitable remedy that
is necessary to recoup the damages and losses sustained by PLAINTIFF as a direct and proximate result
of the RICO DEFENDANTS’ actions pursuant to the conspiracy scheme in an amount to be proven at
trial but not less than Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One
Dollars ($2,169,221.00), plus prejudgment interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum.

189. PLAINTIFF additionally is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under the tort of another
doctrine, as PLAINTIFF was required to file a lawsuit to recover PLAINTIFF’s funds because of RICO
DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50’s tortious conduct.

-47-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page1340f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20096

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE -- AGAINST DEFENDANTS UNITED ESCROW, AND
DOES 14-50)

190. PLAINITFF refers to and incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 189
above as though fully set forth herein.

191. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times alleged
herein, UNITED ESCROW, and its agents assumed and owed a professional duty of care to PLAINTIFF
and its predecessors, and were required to use the same degree of reasonable care, skill, and diligence in
acting as an escrow holder, in Southern California.

192. At all relevant times alleged herein, UNITED ESCROW, its escrow officers and DOES
14-50, were bound by the standards of care with respect to the VOVK Sales Transaction and owed a duty
to PLAINTIFF to use reasonable care and skill with respect to the handling of the escrow.

194. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that UNITED ESCROW
breached its duties owed to PLAINTIFF on the VOVK SALES TRANSACTION causing damage to
PLAINTIFF in an amount not less than Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($850,000.00) by the
following actions, among other things: failing to obtain a valid Identification for VOVK, failing to set up
a notary to notarize the signatures of VOVK or have a California notary complete the signing, failing to
alert PLAINTIFF that no money by VOVK was deposited into escrow, wiring of funds to a third-party
without notification, accepting the Borrower’s deposit into escrow from a third-party without notifying
the lender, and failing to notify PLAINTIFF of all the red flags and irregularities with respect to the
escrow.

196. Asa direct and proximate result of the negligence by UNITED ESCROW, PLAINTIFF
has suffered general and compensatory damages in amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty
Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and further amounts according

to proof at trial.

-48-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page135o0f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20097

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY-- AGAINST DEFENDANTS
UNITED ESCROW, K-ASTRON DBA KONSTANT CLOSINGS, KABILAKFAS, CIAS,
TANDEM, ABRAMSON, AND DOES 14-50)

197. PLAINTIFF refers to and incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 196
above as though fully set forth herein.

198. Defendants UNITED ESCROW, K-ASTRON DBA KONSTANT CLOSINGS,
KABILAKFAS, SIMON, CIAS, TANDEM AND ABRAMSON and DOES 14-50, held a position of
trust and confidence with respect to PLAINTIFF, owing it a fiduciary duty.

199. As such, Defendants UNITED ESCROW, K-ASTRON DBA KONSTANT CLOSINGS,
KABILAKFAS, CIAS, ABRAMSON, TANDEM and DOES 14-50 had a duty to exercise the utmost
loyalty and good faith towards PLAINTIFF and its predecessor in interst at all times. UNITED ESCROW
breached that duty by failing to abide by the duty of loyalty and good faith by, among other things, failing
to notify PLAINTIFF of the irregularities in the escrow, failure to notify PLAINTIFF that Defendant
VOVK had not placed one dime into escrow for the alleged purchase from ATI, failing to notify
PLAINTIFF that its VOVK LOAN funds were to be wired to a third party, ESCROW DOC, that was not
a real escrow company, the red flags raised by demands to wire funds to this third party escrow, and by
failing to communicate information acquired with respect to material facts relating to the VOVK LOAN.
K-ASTRON DBA KONSTANT CLOSINGS, KABILAKFAS, DADYAN, TANDEM, ABRAMSON
and CIAS breached that duty by failing to abide by the duty of loyalty and good faith by, among other
things, making it appear as though YESAYAN was a real borrower/buyer and that he made a deposit into
escrow in the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) when in fact YESAYAN never deposited any
monies with KONSTANT CLOSING and CIAS for the CALHOUN PROPERTY, KINGSWELL
PROPERTY and other real properties; falsely using the notary stamp of Albro; failing to disclose the
notarizations on the loan documents sent to FLAGSTAR were in fact false; and failing to notify
PLAINTIFF of all the red flags and irregularities with respect to the escrow.

200. Asa result of this breach of fiduciary duty alleged above and the mishandling of the

-49-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page136o0f170 Page ID

Sa HD WN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20098

VOVK LOAN funds, PLAINTIFF has been injured in an amount not less than Two Million One Hundred
Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) in an amount to be proven

at trial plus interest.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(BREACH OF ESCROW AGREEMENT -- AGAINST DEFENDANT
UNITED ESCROW AND DOES 14-50)

201. PLAINTIFF refers to and incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs | through 200
above as though fully set forth herein.

202. On or about September 27, 2016, PLAINTIFF entered into a written escrow agreement
with UNITED ESCROW wherein UNITED ESCROW agreed to act as an escrow holder for PLAINTIFF
with respect to the VOVK Sales Transaction (“ESCROW AGREEMENT”). A true and correct copy of
the ESCROW AGREEMENT is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The ESCROW AGREEMENT required
UNITED ESCROW to “meticulously” follow the escrow instructions provided by the PLAINTIFF in
connection with the closing of the VOVK LOAN. The ESCROW AGREEMENT further required that
prior to closing on October 4, 2016, UNITED ESCROW agreed to deliver to PLAINTIFF the following
documents:

1.1 All documents executed by borrower and requiring a notary, shall be
executed by a notary at the office first described above under the direction
of the closing agent (Title or Escrow Company).

1.2 An estimated settlement statement as of the actual Closing Date
approved in writing by the Borrower and Broker.

1.3. A copy of the first (1st) deed of trust (the “First Deed of Trust”)
securing the Promissory Note and encumbering the Property, which has
been executed by the Borrower IN BLUE INK, identifying and securing
that Property first described above and the signature duly NOTARIZED.

The Lender has prepared the First Deed of Trust which conforms to the

-50-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page137o0f170 Page ID
#:20099

Promissory Note and the Title Policy. You shall not allow or accept the First
Deed of Trust to be executed under a power of attorney, without Lender’s
prior written consent, and shall confirm that the individual who is
executing the First Deed of Trust is in fact the person whose signature
is on the document by proper identification.

203. UNITED ESCROW breached the Escrow Agreement by failing to have the Deed of Trust
notarized at UNITED ESCROW’ office or under the direction of UNITED ESCROW, failing to obtain
a first deed of trust encumbering the PROPERTY and failing to verify that VOVK was the person signing
the SUBJECT DEED OF TRUST.

204. PLAINTIFF fully performed its obligations under the ES;CROW AGREEMENT .

205. DEFENDANT UNITED ESCROW’s performance was not excused.

206. As a proximate result of the breach of the ESCROW AGREEMENT, PLAINTIFF has

been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, with pre-trial interest.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE -- AGAINST BROKER MJF, SECURELINE, DADYAN,
KABILAFAS,d HARITUNIAN, TANDEM, ABRAMSON AND DOES 14-50)

207. PLAINTIFF refers to and incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 206 and
as though fully set forth herein.

208. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times alleged
herein MJF, SECURELINE, DADYAN, KABILAFAS, HARITUNIAN, ABRAMSON, TANDEM and
DOES 14-50 were professionals who owed a duty of care to PLAINTIFF and PLAINTIFF’s assignors
in submitting loan applications and credit information for loans. MJF, SECURELINE, DADYAN,
HARITUNIAN, KABILAFAS, TANDEM, ABRAMSON, and DOES 14-50 owed PLAINTIFF’s a duty
to use reasonable care, skill, and diligence in submitting the information contained in the loan applications
to PLAINTIFF’s assignors and to PLAINTIFF. Further, at all relevant times alleged herein
PLAINTIFF’s assignors were each bound by the standards of care set forth by law and imposed upon

them as licensees of the California Bureau of Real Estate.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page1380f170 Page ID
#:20100

209. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that MJF, SECURELINE,
DADYAN, KABILAFAS, HARITUNIAN, TANDEM, ABRAMSON, and DOES 14-50, as the loan
brokers, owed certain duties of care to PLAINTIFF and its assignors, which include but are not limited
to, ensuring the loan application packages submitted to PLAINTIFF were true and correct, and that
VOVK was a real person.

210. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times alleged
herein MJF, SECURELINE, DADYAN, KABILAFAS, HARITUNIAN, TANDEM, ABRAMSON, and
DOES 14-50 each breached their respective professional duties, including statutory duties, by submitting
to PLAINTIFF’s assignor false, inaccurate, and/or misleading information in the VOVK loan application
process. In addition, breached their duties by failing to determine if the borrower was real, failing to
verify the borrower’s information, and failing to properly vet the borrower.

211. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times alleged
herein PLAINTIFF’s assignor reasonably relied on the loan application that MJF, SECURELINE,
DADYAN, KABILAFAS, HARITUNJAN, TANDEM, ABRAMSON, and DOES 14-50 prepared,
compiled, analyzed and presented to it, and, consequently, PLAINTIFF’s assignor approved and funded
the VOVK, KINGSWELL and CALHOUN LOANS.

212. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on thereon alleges that at all relevant times
alleged herein SECURELINE and HARITUNIAN, the licensed brokers, and TANDEM AND
ABRAMSON, licensed brokers, were vicariously liable for each of the acts and omissions committed by
their agents and employees PLAINTIFF is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all
relevant times alleged herein, KABILAFAS, HARITUNIAN, and ABRAMSON were the qualifying
brokers for the transactions at issue, negligently failed to properly train and supervise the activities of
their employees, and others who performed services related to the preparation of the VOVK,
KINGSWELL, and CALHOUN loan transaction.

213. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that as a direct and proximate
result of the breach of their duty of care, MJF, SECURELINE, DADYAN, KABILAFAS,
HARITUNIAN, TANDEM, ABRAMSON, CIAS and DOES 14-50, and each of them, proximate caused

-52-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page139o0f170 Page ID
#:20101

to PLAINTIFF and as assignee of certain lender’s rights, , to be damaged in an amount to be proven at
trial, not less than Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One
Dollars ($2,169,221.00), together with prejudgment interest on Plaintiff's liquidated damages at the

maximum rate allowed by law.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(TO IMPRESS AND FORECLOSE EQUITABLE LIEN -- AGAINST JUBILLIO ESCALARA,
ALONZO, ALL PERSONS KNOWN AND UNKNOWN CLAIMING AN ADVERSE
INTEREST IN PLAINTIFF’S INTEREST IN THE CAMINO PROPERTY AND DOES 14-50)

214. PLAINTIFF re-alleges and incorporation herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 213,
inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

215. On or about February 2, 2005, defendant ESCALERA obtained title to the CAMINO
PROPERTY by a Grant recorded on February 2, 2005 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County as
Instrument Number 05-0248291. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
ESCALERA falsely used the name of ALONZOA as a strawbuyer because ESCALERA was unable to
qualify for a purchase money loan by himself.

216. ESCALERA, and DOES 14-50, agreed to obtain a loan from the ARGENT LOAN from
Argent Mortgage Company (“ARGENT LOAN”) that would be secured by an ARGENT DOT against
the Camino Property. Said Deed of Trust was recorded on February 2, 2005 in the Official Records of
Los Angeles County as Instrument Number 05-0248292 (“ARGENT DOT”).

217. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that ESCALERA, like the other
defendants in the criminal enterprise, rented the CAMINO PROPERTY to third parties for at least Four
Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) per month and retained the rents were used for the criminal enterprise
instead of making mortgage payments.

218. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges ESCALARA was in default for
most of the life of the ARGENT LOAN, and to prevent the loss of the CAMINO PROPERTY to a
foreclosure, ESCALERA and RICO DEFENDANTS recorded numerous false documents against the

-53-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page140o0f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20102

CAMINO PROPERTY, and filed numerous bankruptcies in general with respect to the CAMINO
PROPERTY and the other Properties identified herein. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon
alleges that the chain of title to the CAMINO PROPERTY reflects that DEFENDANT ESCALERA filed
bankruptcy in August 29, 2008 (dismissed two months later), February 3, 2009 (dismissed March 27,
2009), October 21, 2009 (dismissed on 1/8/10), November 25, 2009 (dismissed 12/10/2009), August 8,
2013 (dismissed on February 3, 2014), and February 14, 2014 (dismissed on May 27, 2014). Meanwhile,
Defendants ESCALERA and DOES 14-50 continued collecting rents without paying the mortgage.

219. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in approximately December,
2015, the RICO DEFENDANTS, ESCALARA, and DOES 14-50 agreed to use the CAMINO
PROPERTY as a vehicle to fraudulently obtain an Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars
($850,000.00) loan from a lender, and then used the loan proceeds monies gained from the fraud in in the
criminal enterprise and for the benefit of the RICO DEFENDANTS.

220. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that ESCALERA failed to make
payments on the ARGENT LOAN, and a Notice of Trustee’s Sale setting a sale date for February 26,
2016 (“NOTS”) under the ARGENT DOT was recorded on February 3, 2016 in the Official Records of
Los Angeles County as Instrument Number 20160123354.

221. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges a second Notice of Trustee’s
Sale, setting a sale date of April 26, 2016, (“2nd NOTS”) in connection with a default under the ARGENT
DOT by the ESCALERA, was recorded on February 3, 2016 in the Official Records of Los Angeles
County as Instrument Number 20160123354.

222. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the ESCALARA, the RICO
DEFENDANTS, and DOES 14-50 agreed to record a ficticuous trustee’s deed upon sale against the
property so that they could obtain loan proceeds for ESCALARA and the other RICO DEFENDANTS.
On July 8, 2016, the RICO DEFENDANTS, with ESCALARA’s consent, caused a fictitious Trustee’s
Deed Upon Sale (“ARGENT TDUS”) to be recorded on July 8, 2016 in the Official Records of Los
Angeles County as Instrument Number 20160797398 purporting to eliminate the ARGENT DOT from
the chain of title to the CAMINO PROPERTY. The recorded falsified ARGENT TDUS states that: the

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page141o0f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20103

non-judicial foreclosure sale occurred on June 8, 2016; that ATI was the highest bidder at the sale; that
consideration was paid to the Trustee (QUALITY) and/or the beneficiary under the ARGENT DOT; that
QUALITY authorized the ARGENT TDUS; that “Bradley McNair” signed the ARGENT TDUS; and
that title was granted to ATI. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that all of this
information is in fact false.

223. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that ESCALARA participated in
the fraud, and ratified and consented to the false ARGENT TDUS to be recorded in the chain of title to
the CAMINO PROPERTY to made it appear as though ATI obtained title to the CAMINO PROPERTY
through the ARGENT TDUS. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that ANDIA
signed the false ARGENT TDUS using the name Bradley McNair.

224. Once the ARGENT TDUS was recorded, Escalara and the RICO DEFENDANTS agreed
to create a false purchase agreement to make it appear as though ATI and AT were selling the CAMINO
PROPERTY to a person named TETIANA VOVK. VOVK was a “synthetic buyer,” used to induce a
lender into making a purchase money loan to ESCALARA and the criminal enterprise.

225. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS
agreed that DADYAN, HARITUNIAN, ESCALARA, SECURELINE, ATI, AT, VOVK, AVAKIAN,
MJF, and DOES 14-50 would work to secure a purchase money loan in the amount of One Million Dollars
($1,000,000.00) from a lender. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
ESCALERA and the RICO DEFENDANTS agreed that ESCALERA would receive Two Hundred
Thousand ($200,000.00) from this fraudulent loan scheme and the remaining funds would be used by the
RICO DEFENDANTS and enterprise.

226. PLAINTIFF further is informed and believes and thereon alleges that in or about July 20,
2016, the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50, with the agreement and consent of ESCALARA,
created the FALSE PURCHASE AGREEMENT to reflect a pending sale of the CAMINO PROPERTY
between VOVK and ATI. This was done to further induce a lender into loaning money to what it thought
was a legitimate purchase transaction involving VOVK and ATI.

227. The FALSE PURCHASE AGREEMENT thereafter was sent to UNITED ESCROW to

-55-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page142o0f170 Page ID
#:20104

secure the loan as it showed that VOVK was purchasing the property for One Million Three Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($1,300,000.00) that was to be secured by a first deed of trust (““VOVK DEED OF
TRUST”) against the CAMINO PROPERTY. UNITED ESCROW opened up escrow no. 58708-TK for
the ATI-VOVK sale (““VOVK SALES TRANSACTION”).

228. Onor about August 17, 2016, ESCALARA met with some of the RICO DEFENDANTS
at the CAMINO PROPERTY to discuss the transaction and to allow an appraiser into the Property for
submittal to a lender to make it appear as though the transaction was legitimate. Once again, ESCALARA
was assured that he would receive Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) out of the loan
proceeds fraudulently obtained from a lender.

229. Inor about mid-September, 2016 PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges
that the RICO DEFENDANTS, with ESCALARA’s approval, submittal a loan application along with
the falsified purchase agreement to PLAINTIFF’s predecessor in interest, Milestone Financial, DBA
Alviso Funding. These RICO DEFENDANTS presented false information to PLAINTIFF and its
predecessor, including false statements of the synthetic borrower’s (VOVK) income, employment, social
security number, identification, assets, and creditworthiness. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that the RICO DEFENDANTS and DOES 14-50 worked in concert to induce PLAINTIFF
into making the loan to VOVK. As a result of the reliance on the information presented by the RICO
DEFENDANTS that was falsified and with Escalara’s consent, PLAINTIFF’s Assignor approved the
loan for Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($850,000.00) to for VOVK for her to allegedly
purchase of the CAMINO PROPERTY from ATI and AT (““VOVK LOAN”) and PLAINTIFF agreed
to issue title insurance based upon this false information.

230. As a further fraudulent inducement for the funding of the VOVK LOAN, DADYAN and
DOES 14-50 provided falsely notarized documents to PLAINTIFF reflecting that VOVK executed the
VOVK DEED OF TRUST and the promissory note (““VOVK NOTE”) (now assigned to PLAINTIFF)
and represented that an authorized and California licensed notary had witnessed the signing of the VOVK
DEED OF TRUST by VOVK. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges that such notary

stamp and notary signature were false, and were provided to PLAINTIFF to induce it into making a loan

-56-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page143 0f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20105

to the RICO DEFENDANTS. Thus, Plaintiff and its predecessor in interest’s reliance on all of this
information was reasonable.

231. On or about October 7, 2016, PLAINTIFF funded the VOVK LOAN in the sum of Eight
Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($850,000.00). On October 7, 2016 the VOVK Deed of Trust in
favor of PLAINTIFF’s predecessor/assignor, securing the VOVK LOAN, was recorded in the Office of
the County Recorder for Los Angeles County, California

232. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that ESCALARA agreed to
participate, consented to and ratified the entire fraudulent transction, including releasing ARGENT’s
DOT with the falsified ARGENT TDUS, agreeing to the FALSE PURCHASE AGREEMENT that was
to be submitted to a new lender, and falsifying loan information for the new lender. As a result,
PLAINTIFF is entitled to an equitable lien against the Property as of October 17, 2016.

233. PLAINTIFF seeks a judicial declaration that PLAINTIFF is entitled to impress and
foreclose upon an equitable lien dated October 7, 2016 against the CAMINO PROPERTY.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against the Defendants and DOES 14-50, and
each of them, as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

1. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that all Defendants
DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE,
HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, and DOES 14-50, both jointly and severally, have acquired and
maintained, both directly and indirectly, an interest in and/or control of a RICO enterprise
of persons and of other individuals who were associated in fact, all of whom engaged in,
and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1962(b) (Prohibited Activities);

2. That Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, and DOES 14-50 and all their directors,

-57-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page1440f170 Page ID

#:20106

officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in
participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this action, and
permanently thereafter, from acquiring or maintaining, whether directly or indirectly, any
interest in or control of any RICO enterprise of persons, or of other individuals associated
in fact, who are engaged in, or whose activities do affect, interstate or foreign commerce;
That Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, and DOES 14-50 and all of their directors,
officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active concert or in
participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this action, and
permanently thereafter, from committing any more predicate acts in furtherance of the
RICO enterprise alleged in COUNT ONE supra;

That Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, and DOES 14-50 be required to account for all
gains, profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of racketeering activity in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and
Federal law(s);

That judgment be entered for PLAINTIFF and against all Defendants DADYAN, A.
AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABJLAFKAS, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN,
ANDIA, and DOES 14-50 for PLAINTIFF’s actual damages, and for any gains, profits,
or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), according to the best
available proof;

That all Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, and DOES 14-50 pay to PLAINTIFF treble
(triple) damages, under authority of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), for any gains, profits, or
advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), according to the best
available proof;

That Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,

-58-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10.

#:20107

SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIJA, and DOES 14-50 pay to PLAINTIFF all
damages sustained by PLAINTIFF in consequence of Defendants DADYAN, A.
AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN,
ANDIA, and DOES 14-50’s several violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), according to the
best available proof;

That Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, and DOES 14-50 pay to PLAINTIFF thes costs
of the lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to, all necessary research, all non
judicial enforcement and all reasonable counsel’s fees, at a minimum of Two Hundred
and Seventy Five Dollars ($275.00) per hour worked (Plaintiff's standard professional
rate at start of this action);

That all damages caused by Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS,
KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, and DOES 14-
50, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived by Defendants DADYAN, A.
AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN,
ANDIA, and DOES 14-50, from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1962(b) and from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s), be deemed
to be held in constructive trust, legally foreign with respect to the Federal zone [sic], for
the benefit of Plaintiff and its heirs and assigns; and

That PLAINTIFF have such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper,
under the circumstances of this action.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that Defendants
DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABJLAFKAS, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE,
HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50 have associated
with a RICO enterprise of persons and of other individuals who were associated in fact,

all of whom did engage in, and whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign

-59-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page146o0f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20108

commerce in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (Prohibited Activities);
That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that Defendants
DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE,
HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50 have conducted
and/or participated, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of said RICO enterprise through a
pattern of racketeering activity in violation of the RICO laws at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5)
(“pattern” defined) and 1962(c) supra;

That Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50
and all of their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in
active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of
this action, and permanently thereafter, from associating with any RICO enterprise of
persons, or of other individuals associated in fact, who do engage in, or whose activities
do affect, interstate and foreign commerce;

That Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50
and all of their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in
active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of
this action, and permanently thereafter, from conducting or participating, either directly
or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of any RICO enterprise through a pattern of
racketeering activity in violation of the RICO laws at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5) and 1962(c)
supra;

That Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABJLAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50
and all of their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in
active concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of

this action, and permanently thereafter, from committing any more predicate acts in

-60-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page147of170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10.

#:20109

furtherance of the RICO enterprise alleged in COUNT TWO supra;

That Defendantt DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50
be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived from their several acts
of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) supra and from all other violation(s)
of applicable State and Federal law(s);

That judgment be entered for PLAINTIFF and against Defendants DADYAN, A.
AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN,
ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50 for PLAINTIFF’s actual
damages, and for any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18
U.S.C. § 1962(c) supra, according to the best available proof;

That Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50
pay to PLAINTIFF treble (triple) damages, under authority of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), for
any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) supra,
according to the best available proof;

That Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50
pay to PLAINTIFF all damages sustained by PLAINTIFF in consequence of
DEFENDANTS DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIJAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-
50’s several violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) supra, according to the best available proof;
That Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50
pay to Plaintiff its costs of the lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to, all
necessary research, all non judicial enforcement and all reasonable counsel’s fees, at a

minimum of Two Hundred and Seventy Five Dollars ($275.00) per hour worked

-61-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

Sa HN WN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

11.

12.

#:20110

(Plaintiff's standard professional rate at start of this action);

That all damages caused by Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS,
KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM,
ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50 and all gains, profits, and advantages derived from their
several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) supra and from all other
violation(s) of applicable State and federal law(s), be deemed to be held in constructive
trust, for the benefit of PLAINTIFF, and its assigns; and

That PLAINTIFF have such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper,
under the full range of relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant action.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that Defendants
DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE,
HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50 have conspired
to acquire and maintain an interest in, and/or conspired to acquire and maintain control of,
a RICO enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961(5), 1962(b) and (d) supra;

That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and thereby find that Defendants
DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE,
HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50 have conspired
to conduct and participate in said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering
activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(c) and (d) supra;

That Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50
and all their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active
concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this
action, and permanently thereafter, from conspiring to acquire or maintain an interest in,

or control of, any RICO enterprise that engages in a pattern of racketeering activity in

-62-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page149o0f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20111

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(b) and (d) supra;

That Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50
and all their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active
concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this
action, and permanently thereafter, from conspiring to conduct, participate in, or benefit
in any manner from any RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(c) and (d) supra;

That Defendantt DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50
and all their directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active
concert or in participation with them, be enjoined temporarily during pendency of this
action, and permanently thereafter, from committing any more predicate acts in
furtherance of the RICO enterprise alleged in COUNT THREE supra;

That Defendantt DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50
be required to account for all gains, profits, and advantages derived from their several acts
of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) supra and from all other violation(s)
of applicable State and Federal law(s);

That judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN,
CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA,
TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50 for Plaintiff's actual damages, and for any
gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) supra,
according to the best available proof at the time of trial;

That Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50
pay to PLAINTIFF treble (triple) damages, under authority of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), for

-63-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10.

11.

12.

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page150o0f170 Page ID

#:20112

any gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) supra,
according to the best available proof;

That Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50
pay to PLAINTIFF all damages sustained by PLAINTIFF in consequence of Defendants
DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE,
HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50’s several
violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) supra, according to the best available proof;

That DEFENDANTS DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON and DOES 14-50s
pay to PLAINTIFF its costs of the lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to,
all necessary research, all non judicial enforcement, and all reasonable counsel’s fees, at
a minimum of Two Hundred and Seventy Five Dollars ($275.00) per hour worked
(PLAINTIFF’s standard professional rate at start of this action);

That all damages caused by Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS,
KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON, SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM,
ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50, and all gains, profits, and advantages derived by
Defendants DADYAN, A. AYVAZAN, CIAS, KABILAFKAS, K-ASTRON,
SECURELINE, HARITUNIAN, ANDIA, TANDEM, ABRAHMSON, and DOES 14-50,
from their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) supra and from
all other violation(s) of applicable State and Federal law(s), be deemed to be held in
constructive trust, for the benefit of PLAINTIFF, and its assigns; and

That PLAINTIFF have such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper,
under the full range of relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant action.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

For damages in an amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand

Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any further amounts to be

-64-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page151o0f170 Page ID

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7.

#:20113

proven at trial;

For prejudgment interest thereon;

For attorney’s fees and costs under the Tort of Another Doctrine;

For exemplary and punitive damages;

For a preliminary and permanent injunction during the pendency of this action on all
accounts of Defendants and DOES 14-50, including Bank of America Account number
XXXX-xXxxx-1364, and thereafter a release to PLAINTIFF by the Court’s Judgment, of all
monies in any identified accounts of Defendants of at least Two Million One Hundred
Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any
further amounts to be determined at trial;

For attorneys’ fees, as permitted by law;

For costs of suit; and

For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper, including but not
limited to, restitution in the amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine
Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any additional
amounts as according to proof at trial.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

For damages in an amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand
Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any further amounts to be
proven at trial;

For prejudgment interest thereon;

For attorney’s fees and costs under the Tort of Another Doctrine;

For exemplary and punitive damages;

For a preliminary and permanent injunction during the pendency of this action on all
accounts of Defendants and DOES 14-50, including Bank of America Account number
XXXX-xXxxx-1364, and thereafter a release to PLAINTIFF by the Court’s Judgment, of all

monies in any identified accounts of Defendants of at least Two Million One Hundred

-65-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

Oo CO NS DD

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page152o0f170 Page ID

#:20114

Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any
further amounts to be determined at trial;

For attorneys’ fees, as permitted by law;

For costs of suit; and

For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper, including but
not limited to, restitution in the amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine
Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any additional
amounts as according to proof at trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

For damages in an amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand
Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any further amounts to be
proven at trial;

For prejudgment interest thereon;

For attorney’s fees and costs under the Tort of Another Doctrine;

For exemplary and punitive damages;

For a preliminary and permanent injunction during the pendency of this action on all
accounts of Defendants and DOES 14-50, including Bank of America Account number
XXXX-XxXxx-1364, and thereafter a release to PLAINTIFF by the Court’s Judgment, of all
monies in any identified accounts of Defendants of at least Two Million One Hundred
Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any
further amounts to be determined at trial;

For a constructive trust on the BURBANK PROPERTY as the VOVK LOAN proceeds
were fraudulently obtained and transferred to obtain interests said property;

For costs of suit; and

For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper, including but
not limited to, restitution in the amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine

Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any additional

-66-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 _ Filed 04/29/22 Page1530f170 PageID

10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20115

amounts as according to proof at trial.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

For damages in an amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand
Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any further amounts to be
determined at trial;

For prejudgment interest thereon;

For attorney’s fees and costs under the Tort of Another Doctrine;

For exemplary and punitive damages;

For a preliminary and permanent injunction during the pendency of this action on all
accounts of Defendants and DOES 1-50, including Bank of America Account number
XXXX-XxXxx-1364, and thereafter a release to PLAINTIFF by the Court’s Judgment, of all
monies in any identified accounts of Defendants of at least Two Million One Hundred
Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any
further amounts to be determined at trial;

For a constructive trust on the BURBANK PROPERTY as the VOVK LOAN proceeds
were fraudulently obtained and transferred to obtain interests said property;

For attorneys’ fees, as permitted by law;

For costs of suit; and

For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper, including but
not limited to, restitution in the amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine
Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any additional
amounts as according to proof at trial.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

For damages in an amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand
Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any further amounts to be
determined at trial;

For prejudgment interest thereon;

-67-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 _ Filed 04/29/22 Page154o0f170 PageID

10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#:20116

For attorney’s fees; and
For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

For damages in an amount of at least Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars
($850,000.00) and any further amounts to be determined at trial;
For damages against K-ASTRON in the sum of One Million Three Hundred Nineteen
Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($1,319,221.00), plus any further
amounts to be determined at trial;
For prejudgment interest thereon;
For exemplary and punitive damages; and
For costs of suit.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

For damages in an amount of at least Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars
($850,000.00) and any further amounts to be determined at trial;
For prejudgment interest thereon;
For attorneys’ fees, as permitted by law;
For costs of suit; and
For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper, including but
not limited to, restitution in the amount of at least Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($850,000.00) and any additional amounts as according to proof at trial.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

For damages in an amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand
Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any further amounts to be
determined at trial;

For prejudgment interest thereon;

For attorneys’ fees, as permitted by law;

For costs of suit; and

-68-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 _ Filed 04/29/22 Page155o0f170 PageID

#:20117
1 5. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper, including but
2 not limited to, restitution in the amount of at least Two Million One Hundred Sixty Nine
3 Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty One Dollars ($2,169,221.00) and any additional
4 amounts as according to proof at trial.
5 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 1. For a judgment of the Court imposing an equitable lien in favor of Plaintiff with an
7 effective date of October 7, 2016 against the CAMINO PROPERTY adjudging that
8 PLAINTIFF’s lien, and its terms as specified in the SUBJECT DEED OF TRUST
9 recorded on October 7, 2016, and that PLAINTIFF may foreclose upon such lien.
10 2. For costs; and
11 3. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
12
!3|! DATED: February 11, 2021 HERSHORIN & HENRY, LLP _
15 a
By:
16 LORI C. HERSHORIN, ESQ.
ETHAN S. ROBINSON, ESQ.
17 Attorneys for Plaintiff,
18 WFG NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a South Carolina corporation
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -69-
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Cas

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

e 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303 Filed 04/29/22 Page156o0f170 Page ID
#:20118
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff WFG National Title Insurance Company hereby demands a jury trial.
DATED: February 11, 2021 HERSHORIN & HENRY, LLP _
By:

LORI C. HERSHORIN, ESQ.

ETHAN S. ROBINSON, ESQ.

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

WFG NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a South Carolina corporation

-70-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page1580f170 Page ID

Date:

To:

co:

From:

Subject:

#:20120

LENDER'S ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS

&
AGREEMENT

September 27, 2016

United Escrow Co, (“Escrow Company”)

Attention: Tracy Ko (“Escrow Officer”)

Address: 3440 Wilshire Blvd., #600, Los Angeles, CA 90010
E-mail: tracyk@unitedescrowinc.com

Phone: 213-386-1830

Fax: 213-385-1666

MIF Funding Corporation (“Broker”)
Attention: Mare Fournier

Milestone Financial, LLC dba Alviso Funding (“Lender”)
Attention: William R. Stuart/Zoe Hamilton

Address: 4970 Hl Camino Real #230, Los Altos, CA 94022:
Phone; 650-690-1473

Fax: 603-719-4786

Email; zhamiltou@milestonefinancial.net

Lender Instractions to Hscrow and Title Companies

Escrow Number: 58708-TK (“Escrow”) .

Borrower: Tatiana A. Vovk (“Borrower”)

Amount of Loan: $850,000.00 (“Loan Amoynt”)

Property to Secure Loan: 4050 Camino de la Cumbre, Sh¢rman Oaks Area
of Los Angeles County, CA 91423 (‘Property’)

Title Company: WEG National Title Company (the “Title

Title Report(s): Issued by the Title Company dated July 8, 2016

Order #: 6134558-JV (the “Title Report”)

This document shall constitute the escrow instructions to be followed
meticulously by the Escrow Company and the Title Company in connection with
the closing of the above. referenced loan té be funded by Lender to the Escrow
Company for Borrower sectred throwgh a first. (1°) Deed of Trust ak the same is
amended by that certain Rider to Deed of Trust dated concurrently therewith
(collectively; the “Deed of Trust”) which ia to he recorded against the Property
and wheu executed by Lender, Borrower, Broker, the Escrow Company, and the

Title Company.

Page 1 of 7

WFG000021
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page159o0f170 Page ID

#:20121

Ms, Tracy Ko ©
Séptember 27, 2016

Page 2

On or before FUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2016 (the “Closing” or the’“Closing Date”),
Lender shall provide written confirmation to the Escrow Company (which can include
confirmation by email) that the Escrow Company has delivesed to Lender the following

documents:

1.1 These Instructions executed by Lender, Borrower, Broker, and the Escrow
Company and the Title Company. ALL DOCUMENTS EXXCUTED BY
BORROWER AND REQUIRING A NOTARY, SHALL BE EXECUTED BY
A NOTARY AT THE OFFICES FIRST DESCRIBED ABOVE UNDER
DIRECTION OF THE CLOSING AGENCY (TITLE OR ESCROW

COMPANY).

1.2 An estimated settlement statement as of the actual Closing Date approved in writing
by the Borrower and Broker. Such statement shall be consistent with the terms
and conditions of that certain Promissory Note given by Borrower in favor of
Lender, the Deed of Trust and this Agreement.

1.3 A copy of the first (1st) deed of trost (the “First Deed of Trust”) securing the
Promissory Note and encumbering the Property, which has been executed by the
Botrower IN BLUE INK, identifying and securing that Property first described
above and the signature duly NOTARIZED. The Lender has prepared the First
Deed of Trust which conforms to the Promissory Note and the Title Policy further
defined below. You shall. not allow or accept the First Deed of Trust to be executed
under a power of attorney, without Lendet’s prior written consent, and shall
confirm that the individual who fs executing the First Deed of Trust is in fact
the person whose signature is on the document by proper identification and
shall confirm, if the signatory is not a natural person but rather a business
entity, that the individval signing the document is authorized to execute such a

document.

The return address after recording shown on the dooument shall be:

4970 Bl Carnino Real, #230
Los Altos, CA 94022,

1.4 “Authorization to Provide Information” NOTARIZED and executed by Borrower.

15 “Lender, Broker, Borrower Agreement to Anrange Credit” executed by Broker and
Borrower.

‘1.6 “Affidavit Regatding Loan Purpose” NOTARIZED arid executed by Borrower,

1.7 “Borrower Certification” executed by Borrower.

Page 2 of 7

WFG000022
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1303 _ Filed 04/29/22 Page160of170 Page ID

#:20122

Ms. Tracy Ko
September 27, 2016

Page 3

1.8 W-9 completed and execnted by Borrower.
1.9 Borrower Contact Infonnation completed and executed by Borrower.

1.10 .A Statement of Infonnation/Identity from each Borrower using standard for use by
the Title Company,

1.11 Copy of driver's liqense from each individual signing oh. behalf of Borrower.

1.12 A copy of all decumentation relating to fhe transfer of ownership interest
Tatian A. Vovk.

1.13 A certificate confirming that Borrower has procured that insurance coverage set
forth on the enclosed Agreement To Maintain Property Insurance, to be
executed by Borrower as part of this Closing.

1.14 A commitment from the Tjfle Company to issue an ALTA 2006 EXTENDED
LOAN POLICY of title insurance, (the “Title Policy”) in favor of Lender as the
insured, together with and including the following provisions:

A. ALTA endorsements:

100 (Restrictions, Enctoachments & Minerals)

103.7 (Land Abuts Sfreet)

110.9 (Environmiontal Lign)

116- (Designation of Improvements as Single Family House; Address as
first stated above)

116.7 (Compliance with Subdivision Map Act)

125 (Troth-In-Lending}

129 (Single Tax Parcel)

B. Coverage under the Title Policy shall be in the amount of 125% of the Loan
Amount.

C. The Title Policy is to insure that fee title to the Property is vested in Borrower,
that the Wrst Deed of Trust js a First (1st) priority lien against the Property,
SUBJECT ONLY TO unpaid property taxes (which shall be paid current at
Closing), and that there sre not any mortgages, deeds of trust, or other liens,
ensumbrances, rights-of-way or leases affe¢ting or exicumbering the Propetty
that are junior and subordinaté to the First Deed of Trast. If your searah
discloses any. liens, restrictions, reservations, or other matters affecting title,
not waived in these instructions, please inform Lender immediately giving full

details,

Page 3 of 7

WFG000023
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1303
#:20123

Filed 04/29/22

Page 161 of 170 Page ID

The Title Policy shall be assignable without cost or notice for the benefit of
any successor-in-interest (assignee) of Lender but such assignability shall not
relieve the Title Insurer of any duly to defend and indemnify Lender as if an

‘Ms, Tracy Ko
September 27, 2016
Page 4
D.
assignment had, never taken place,

Lender accepts Title, Policy subject to items 1, 1b —4 & 7 listed oxi the Title

Report.

Once fhe Escrow Company receives written. confirmation (which can include

confirmation by email) that fender is in possesstox all the foNowing documents listed in
Paragraph 1 above, Lender will. wire Title Company the Loan Amount and Title

Company shall only use these proceeds in accdtdance with these.instructions.

Once the Title Company receives fhe Loan Arnount, it is immediately directed to close
the transaction as follows:

3.1, Carry out this Agreement and such other instructions as may be approved in writing
by Lender.

3.2 Pay on behalf of Borrower out of the Loan Amount the-following costs and items:

A.

boa

Pey in fall and remove all other liens against the Property to comply with

Paragraph 1 above.

Pay to Lender interest under the Note FROM THE ACTUAIL FUNDING
DATE through October 1, 2016 - BASED ON 365 DAYS

Broker Fee:

Broker Processirig Fee:

$17,000.00

$650.00

Lender Points (Origination); $33,150.00

Underwriting Fee;

Loan Dacuments;

Funding Fee:.

Wiré Fes;
Property Inspection:

$475.0)
$400.00
$250.00
$45.00

$325.00

$35.00

Page 4 of 7

to: MIF Funding Corp,

to: MIF Funding Carp.

ta: Milestons Financial LLC
to: Milestone Financial LLC,
to: Milestone Financial LLC.
to: Milestone Financjal LLC.
to: Milestone Financial LLC,
to: Milestone Financial LLC.

to: Milestone Financial LLC,

WFG000024
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page162o0f170 Page ID

#:20124

Ms. Tracy Ko
September 27, 2016

Page 5

3.3. Deduct and pay from the Joan proceeds your own ordinary and customary costs and
charges required to close this Escrow and which are not disbursed as provided
herein and which are approved in writing by Borrower. Lender shall not incur any
costs associated with the conduct of this transaction, the close of this Escrow, the
recordation of any decuments, or the issuance of the Tide Policy or any other title
insurance required. herein.

3.4 Record in the Recorder’s Office of Los Angeles County the Deed of Trust only at
such time as the Title Policy can be ynderwritten and insured by the Title Company
in favor of Lender as set forth ahove. NO JUNIOR TRUST DEEDS OR LIENS

ARE PERMITTED BEHIND THE DEED OF TRUST AT CLOSING.

3.5 If you obtain or receive at any time any communication, certificates, resolutions, or
other materials from Borrower or any other person or entity as a condition to or
which may alter the issuing of the Title Policy as provided above, then you shall
immediately deliver copies of each sugh information to lender for Lender's review

and written approval prior to Closing.

3.6 Where you or your agents or employees have knowledge that Borrower is
contemplating or planning, another transaction or escrow (either under your control
or under the control of some other person or entity) for the recordation of some
junior or other lien, mortgage or other hypothecation of the Property, you have

‘ received written approval from Lender to such junior ot ofher deed of trust,
mortgage or other hypothecation of the Property.

3.7 Deliver all documents and funds in favor of Lender to:

c/o William R. Stuart

4970 Bl Camino Real, #230

Los Altos, CA 94022 . .
Phone: 800.391.0596

Fax: 603-719-4786

Arbitration: Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, or any of the
provisions of the Title Policy or Title Report, the parties to this Agreement apree that any
controversy between the partics regarding the construction or application of this
Agreement, the Title Policy or the Title Report (collectively, the “Arbitrable Contracts”),
including any claim, demand, breach or tort atlsing out of the Axbitrable Contracts,
including breach of fiduciary duty‘or fraud, shall be submitted to binding arbitration on
the written request of one party after seivice of that request on the other, The tales te be
governing the arbitration are as follows:

4.1 Arbitrator. Any digpite, claith or contiovetsy arising out of or relating to this
Apreement or the breach, termination, enforcemeént, interpretation or validity
thereof, including the determination of the scope or applicability of this agreement
to arbitrate, shall ba determined by arbitration in San Frahoisco, CA before three (3)

Page 5 of 7

WFG000025
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page1630f170 Page ID
#:20125

Ms. Tracy Ko
September 27, 201 6
Page 6

arbitrators. The arbitration shall be administered by JAMS pursuant to its
Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures and in accordance with the
Expedited Procedures in those Rules. Judgment on the Award may be entered in any
court having jurisdiction. This clause shall not preclude patties from secking
provisionaf remedies in aid of arbitration from a court of appropriate jurisdiction.

4

4.2. Award. The award of the arbitrator shall be binding, and conclusive on the parties,
A judgment confirming the award may be given by any superior court having
jurisdiction, including the Superior Court of Santa Clara County.

4.4 Integration. The terms and conditions of this arbitration supersede any other
arbitration or mediation provision which may be set forth in any of the actual

Arbitrable Contracts.

These instructions supersede any prior instructions, whether written or oral, These instructions
represent the final and only instructions by Lender to the Title Company and may only bs
modified or changed by written amendment executed by Lender. We reserve the right to cancel
or amend these instructions at any time prior to the recording of the First Deed of Trust. Time is
of the essence with respect to fhese instruotions and the delivery of all documents and materials
(including the Title Policy) required herein. Kindly acknowledge receipt of these instructions
and the enclosed documents by signing and returning this letter with your wiring instructions to:

c/o William, R, Stuart

4970 Bl Camino Real, #230
Los Altos, CA 94022
Phone: 800.391.0596

Fax: 603-719-4786

If this transaction has not closed by the Closing Date please contact ‘the undersigned. If you have
any questions, please to not hesitate to contact the below.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties executing below acknowledge their receipt of a fully
exeguted copy of this agreement and agree to camy out each of their respective duties and
obligations hereunder.

LENDER: MiLESTONE FINANCIAL LLC
By: Bear Bruin Ventures, Tnc.; its

By:

William R. Stuart, its President

Pape 6 of 7

WFG000026
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

92630.

Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page165o0f170 Page ID

#:20127

PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE

I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a
party to the within action. My business address is 26475 Rancho Parkway South, Lake Forest, California

On February 11, 2021, I served the foregoing document(s) described as SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT on all interested parties in this action by placing a true copy(ies) in sealed envelope(s)
addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST.

METHOD OF SERVICE

[XX] (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) By personally transmitting to the above-named person(s), who

has previously agreed to receive documents via electronic mail, to the e-mail address as shown
above, on the date and time listed below, originating from Hershorin & Henry, LLP’s electronic
mail address, pursuant to the C.R.C. 2060 and Government Code § 11440.20. A true copy of
the above-described document(s) was transmitted by electronic transmission through Hershorin
& Henry, LLP’s mail server, which did not report any error in sending the transmission.

(STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.

Executed on February 11, 2021 at Lake Forest, California.

/s/ Katie T. Ellingsen
Katie T. Ellingsen
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 1303

Ce Filed 04/29/22
#:20128

Page 166 of 170 Page ID

SERVICE LIST

COUNSEL/PARTIES

REPRESENTING

Corey A. Carter, Esq.

27240 Turnberry Lane, Suite 200
Valencia, CA 91355

Tel: (323) 825-5529

Fax: (323) 450-2222

E-mail: corey@themainstreetattorney.com

Attorneys for Defendants TANDEM MORTGAGE,
INC. and STEVEN ABRAMSON (DOE 8)

Michael Y. Yi, Esq.

KIM PARK CHOI & YI

3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003
Tel: (213) 384-7600

Fax: (213) 384-4888

E-mail: michaelyi@kpcylaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant UNITED ESCROW CO.

Jubilio Escalera

7912 Ventura Canyon Avenue
Panorama City, CA 91402
Tel: (818) 402-1718

E-mail: jubilioe@yahoo.com

Jubilio Escalera
4050 Camino De La Cumbre
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423

Defendant INPRO PER

Ara T. Haritunian

1484 Third Street, Unit A

La Verne, CA 91750

Tel: (909) 938-9585

E-Fax: (818) 279-2289

E-mail: araharitunian@yahoo.com

Defendant IN PRO PER

Vincent J. Quigg, Esq.

Law Offices of Vincent J. Quigg
5411 Long Beach Blvd.

Long Beach, CA 90805-5205
Tel: (562) 428-0550

Fax: (562) 428-1880

E-mail: quigglaw@yahoo.com

Attorneys for Defendant K-ASTRON VENTURES,
INC. d/b/a KONSTANT CLOSINGS

Konstantine Kabilafkas

1423 15th Street #2

Santa Monica, CA 90404

Tel: (310) 597-7211

E-mail: konstantinek@roadrunner.com

Defendant INPRO PER

Jerry Kaplan

Gohar Sogomonyan

KAPLAN KENEGOS & KADIN

9150 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 175

Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Tel: (310) 859-7700

Fax: (310) 859-7773

E-mail: office@3klaw.com / gohar@3klaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant SECURELINE REALTY
AND FUNDING, INC.; TAMARA DADYAN; and
ARTHUR AYVAZYAN
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page1680f170 Page I|D
#:20130

DOCUMENTS SOUGHT
1. Government’s Trial Exhibits

Bank Records from the First Superseding Indictment
Exhibit 1.d: Secureline Realty (Comerica 8935)
Exhibit 1.e: Secureline Realty (Wells Fargo 1754)
Exhibit 1.p: Runyan Tax Service (Bank of America 6271)
Exhibit 1.q: Mod Interiors (Radius 2395)
PPP/EIDL Loan Files from FSI
Exhibit 2.c: Loan file — Secureline Realty (Comerica PPP)
Exhibit 2.d: Loan File — Secureline Realty (Wells Fargo PPP)
Exhibit 2.n: Loan File — Runyan Tax Service (Seattle Bank PPP)
Exhibit 2.0: Loan File —- Mod Interiors (Newtek PPP)
Summary Chart Exhibits — Comparison
Exhibit 3.d: Loan File — Escrow Doc (BofA PPP)
Exhibit 3.k: Loan File — Lindmyla Kopytova dba LK Design (Newtek PPP)
Exhibit 3.m: Loan File — Mod Interiors, Inc (Celtic PPP)
Summary Exhibits — Loans
Exhibit 4.d: ABC Realty Advisors Inc (EIDL)
Exhibit 4.e: ABC Realty Advisors Inc (B of A PPP)
Exhibit 4.y: Grigor Akopyan (EIDL)
Exhibit 5.c: Journeymen Construction (EIDL)
Exhibit 5.d: Liudmyla Kopytova/LK Design (EIDL)
Exhibit 5.e: Liudmyla Kopytova/LK Design (EIDL)
Exhibit 5.f: Liudmyla Kopytova/LK Design (Fountainhead PPP)
Exhibit 5.k: Mod Interiors (CDC SBF PPP)
Exhibit 5.1: Mod Interiors (Cross River PPP)
Exhibit 5.m: Mod Interiors (EIDL)
Exhibit 5.x: Runyan Tax Service (EIDL)
Exhibit 6.e: Secureline Realty & Funding (EIDL)
Exhibit 10: Text Message Excerpt (Tammy to Rich New)
Exhibit 10-1 to 10-70: Text Message Files attachments
Exhibit 12.a: Photo of 1B21 (iPhone belonging to Tamara Dadyan, et al.)
Exhibit 13.a: User Information (apple ID of T., Tammy.Dadyan@aol.com, and
others)
Exhibit 13.b: Identification Cards
Exhibit 13.c: Checkbooks
Exhibit 13.d: SBA Applications
Exhibit 13.e: Tax Documents
Exhibit 13.f: Mail
Exhibit 13.g: Photograph
Exhibit 13.h: Web History Artifact
Exhibit 13.1: Screenshot
Digital Devices — 1B81
Exhibit 16.a: User Information (Apple ID Mary.Abelian@yahoo.com)
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page169o0f170 Page ID
#:20131

Exhibit 16.b: handwritten Notes
Digital Devices — 1B85
Exhibit 19.a: User Information (Apple ID Rich@flipper.com, et al.)
Exhibit 19.b: Identification
Exhibit 19.c: Financial Information
Exhibit 19.d: handwritten Notes
Exhibit 19.e: Photograph of EIDL Website
Digital Devices — 1B17
Exhibit 23: User Information
Exhibit 24.a ID Editing
Exhibit 24.b: Identification
Exhibit 24.c: Financial Information
Exhibit 24.d: SBA Application Images
Money Laundering & Misuse of Funds
Exhibit 31.a through k: CV Escrow Documents
State-Federal
Exhibit 44: U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Customs Border Protection —
TECS Records and Certification
Exhibit 45: California EDD — Certificate of Facts
Exhibit 51.b: California DMV — Records affidavit
Premises Search Warrant Evidence
Exhibit 56.d: Topeka SW photos
Exhibit 56.j through 56.p: Topeka SW photos
Exhibit 57.a: Weddington — Copies and/ or photos of checks, checkbooks, etc.;
Identification documents; PPP and EIDL; Handwritten notes; list of emails
Exhibit 57.b through 57.m: Weddington — Copies and/ or photos
Other — IP Addresses
Exhibits 73.a through 73.1: Charter Communications
Other — Death Certificates
Exhibit 74: Olaf Landsgard Death Certificate
Exhibit 75: Nazar Terabelyan Death Certificate
Other — Miscellaneous
Exhibit 83: Abbott & Hast Mortuary Invoices
Exhibit 84: Glendale Gas and Power Invoices
Summary Exhibits — Banks
Exhibit 85: ABC Realty (IPMC 8366) — Signature card, bank statements
Exhibit 86: Anton Kudiumov (BofA 7572) — Signature card, bank statements
Exhibit 90: Mod Interiors (BofA) — Opening document, signature card, bank
statements
Additional Banks and Sources
Exhibit 100: Bank of America (9700) — Signature card, bank statements, bank
records
Exhibit 101: Bank of America (9713) — Signature Card, bank statements, bank
records
Exhibit 110: Wells Fargo (5076) — Signature card, bank statements, bank records
Exhibit 116: Summary Chart — loan application document analysis
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document1303_ Filed 04/29/22 Page1700f170 Page I|D
#:20132

Exhibits 117-120: Not to Jury

2. Exhibits to Pre-Trial Motions
Docket no. 207: Opposition to Motion to Suppress
Exhibit 13: Report regarding the execution of the search warrant for Subject
Premises-4, Bates-stamped DOH_PROD_0000149591-
DOJ_PROD_0000149602, describing “official looking rubber stamps,
including stamps for the Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County
Clerk, the Los Angeles Superior Court, and numerous notaries.”


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.1303.0.pdf

Size

8,876,244 bytes

SHA-256

64fc072e4b05cf521f3daf14591e90ff3cae90823684280f2dfb60140304f2ad

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.1303.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)