The Truth About Hal Rosner
ROSNER PUT HIS INTEREST FIRST - NOW HIS CLIENTS OWE $1.5 MILLION!

Calendar

April 2014
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930

Recent Comments

Monthly Archives

Subscribe


Carl Stone and the Gang Owe $1.5 Million - How Long Before the Malpractice Cases Begin

RACEWAY FORD CASES - RIC JCCP 4476

ROSNER, BARRY & BABBITT, LLP

10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite  #100

San   Diego,   CA   92131

Total amount of judgment as entered or last renewed:

$    1,503,084.50

All judgment creditors and debtors are listed on this abstract.

Judgment entered on: June 8, 2 012

Stone vs Raceway Abstract of Judgement


Carl Stone & Debra Stone

947 Laura Street

Myrtle Creek, OR  97547

 

Jonathan Ott & Martha Ott

4414 Dallas Place

Perris, CA 92571

 

Eldridge Johnson

14871 Petedye Street 

Moreno Valley, CA 92553

 

Randal Kidd

1775 Santiago Way

Hemet, CA 92545

 

Macon Pollard & Ozetta Pollard

17015 Via Reata

Fontana, CA 92337

 

Suzanna Moreno

23152 Dracaea Avenue 

Moreno Valley, CA 92553


Joe Contreras

3939 Cranford, Apt. 21

Riverside, CA 92507

 

Anselmos Alaniz

5237 Manhart Circle

Riverside, CA 92509

Judge Holmes Signs Raceway's Motion to Award $1.5M Fees & Cost

Click here to see the Court Order that well may cost Hal $1.5M Stone Cost & Fee Order

ADVICE TO HAL



This website expresses my opinions. Although I am not a lawyer, here is some advice Hal: 

Any legal action on your behalf to suppress my opinions will most likely not survive a SLAPP motion resulting in you owing me additional attorney fees & cost. 

By the way Hal, this is the warning you should have given to your plaintiffs when you decided to sue on their behalf under the ASFA.

Letter about Rosner's Potential Conflict of Interest

LAW OFFICES OF

GELLER & STEWART, LLP

Post Office Box 7599, Moreno Valley, CA   92552-7599


May 9, 2012                                                                              

Our File No.: 10393-115

Mr. Hallen Rosner

Rosner Barry & Babbitt

10085 Carroll Canyon Road Suite 100

San Diego, CA  92131


Re:     Raceway Ford Cases Costs and Fees Award

 Sent via Email & US Mail

Dear Hal,

I am told that through Angela Smith, there was a request to consolidate the appeal of the underlying case with that for the likely appeal on the attorney’s fees award.  And I am of the understanding that while we will consent to the consolidation for purposes of oral argument, we will not stipulate to consolidate the two appeals for briefing purposes.


While Hawk stated the appeal of the attorney’s fees and costs award was a foregone conclusion, there are a number of issues that you should consider.  It is not my intention to suggest to you how to practice law or provide legal advice, but these are serious issues you must consider before appealing the attorney’s fees and costs issue.


I am obliged to tell you that if you file an appeal of the order on the fee motion, Raceway will file a cross-appeal, challenging the portion of Judge Holmes’ order that declined to impose fees and costs on the seven plaintiffs who dismissed on the eve of trial.  To refresh your recollection, those plaintiffs were Ernest Myles, Helen Flores, Gloria Mendez, Rosana Martinez, Zenaida Diaz, Elisha Mejia and Mable Armstrong.   


Although we understand Judge Holmes’ analysis under Civil Code §1717 for contractual fee awards, we don’t believe the rule is the same for ASFA fee awards, and therefore, the court should have held these seven plaintiffs liable to the same extent as your other clients.   If the rule were as Judge Holmes’ order supposed, then there would be nothing to dissuade people from filing frivolous ASFA claims.  


I think once the case is filed, there is an obligation to attorney’s fees as there is for costs.  The dismissal of a claim does not remove the obligation to pay costs and attorney’s fees under ASFA and are just another element of costs so, as such, I am not aware of any case law that would support otherwise.  As such, unless you are completely successful on appeal, these 7 plaintiffs who are now free of any obligation in this case whatsoever, could be obligated to joint and several liability in excess of the 1.5M that has already been awarded, due to the possible imposition of post-judgment attorney’s fees and about $410.00 per day of interest accruing on the award.  We will not appeal the judge’s ruling dismissing the 7 plaintiffs if the remaining plaintiffs do not appeal the award.


If you go forward with an appeal of the fee award, we believe you will be favoring the interests of the 12 over the interests of the seven, subjecting the seven to a wholly unnecessary risk of significant financial liability.  Under such circumstances, certainly an actual conflict of interest will have arisen between your clients.


As you must know, the rules of professional responsibility require, at minimum, that you should   have   obtained   all   of   your   clients’   informed   written   consents   to joint representation at the outset of your representation.  Furthermore, if a potential conflict becomes actual (as it has here), and no such consents were obtained at the outset, it’s too late to get consents now, and your firm is required to withdraw from both sets of clients.


Accordingly, Raceway hereby notifies you that it reserves its right to challenge your sufficiency as class counsel in the face of these changing circumstances... I sent this to you since yours is the first name on the firm.  Do what you want with this but we just wanted to be sure you were aware of how we are going to handle this.


Sincerely,

Geller & Stewart, LLP

 

 Michael S. Geller

 Cc:  Christopher “Hawk” Barry [email and US Mail]; Kellie Christianson [via email only]


Yes, Mr. Stone You Really Do Owe Raceway Ford $1.5 Million

 


 



HONORABLE JUDGE DALLAS SCOTT HOLMES, PRESIDING

CLERK: C. ZUNIGA

COURT REPORTER: S. LAYTON

RACEWAY FORD INC REPRESENTED BY CALLAHAN, THOMPSON,SHERMAN & CAUDILL - KELLIE S CHRISTIANSON PRESENT.

ROBERT LOVERSO, RACEWAY FORD INC REPRESENTED BY GELLER, STEWART & FOLEY - MICHAEL S GELLER PRESENT.

HAWK BARRY REPRESENTING PLAINTIFFS PRESENT

AT 11:00, THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD:

COURT HAS READ AND CONSIDERED MOVING PAPERS.

COURT ISSUES TENTATIVE RULING.

COUNSEL ARGUE.

COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING ORDERS:

MOTION FOR COSTS GRANTED.

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES GRANTED IN PART.

COURT FINDS RACEWAY FORD TIMELY FILED ITS MEMORANDUM OF COSTS AND ITS MOTION FOR

ATTORNEYS FEES. PLAINTIFFS DID NOT TIMELY CONTEST THE COST MEMO, SO RACEWAY FORD IS

ENTITLED TO ALL OF ITS COSTS AS CLAIMED.

-

THERES NO CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO ATTORNEYS FEES BUT THERE IS A RIGHT TO ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER

THE ASFA. THERES NOT ANY APPORTIONMENT OF FEES HERE. AND THE AMOUNT OF FEES THE COURT IS

DETERMINING UNDER GRACIANO IS 4918.6 HOURS TIMES $300 FOR A TOTAL OF $1,475,580. LESS $7,200 FOR

TIME AS A FAIR REPRESENTATION AS CLOSE AS THE COURT CAN COME TO IT FOR THE TIME SPENT ON MR.

SALCEDO AS A SEVERABLE ITEM. MR. SALCEDO IS NOT LIABLE FOR RACEWAYS COSTS OR FEES BECAUSE HE

PREVAILED AND THATS THE REASON FOR THE $7,200 DEDUCTION WHICH IS AS NEAR AS THE COURT CAN COME

TO A FAIR CALCULATION AT THIS POINT. IN ADDITION, THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS WHO VOLUNTARILY

DISMISSED THEIR CASE ALSO ARE NOT LIABLE FOR RACEWAY FORDS COSTS OR ATTORNEYS FEES.

FORMAL ORDER TO BE PREPARED, SERVED AND SUBMITTED BY COUNSEL FOR RACEWAY FORD, MS. CHRISTIANSON

NOTICE WAIVED.

Raceway files $1.9 Million Cost & Fee Motion

 

              To Plaintiffs Carl Stone, Debora Stone, Francisco Salcedo, Anselmo Alaniz, Helen Flores, Ernest Miles, Gloria Mendez, Rosana Martinez, Rene Lopez Romero, Joe Contreras, Edelmira Contreras, Jonathan Ott, Martha Ott, Eldridge Johnson, Elisha Mejia, Mable Armstrong, Macon Pollard, Ozetta Pollard, Suzanna Moreno, Zenaidia Diaz, Randal Kidd and their Attorneys of Record:

WE WON

 

HAL  LOST 

Now His Clients Must Pay!

Finally,  our $1,900,000 Fee Motion has been filed.   When you win an ASFA case provisions in the ASFA awards fees to the prevailing party.  Click here to see the Motion Stone Cost & Fee Motion.  


Advice to Carl Stone and His Band of Merry Litigants

Retain a Competent Malpractice Attorney

It doesn't take a lawyer to give this common sense advice to plaintiffs.


Dear Carl & Fellow Plaintiffs, 

If you trusted your lawyers and believed they would act in your best interests and now you find you owe $1.5M you should consult with a malpractice attorney.  Despite what you may believe your assets are at risk because the defendant will make every effort to collect their award. 

Civil Legal Malpractice – In this case Rosner & Barry may have committed a Breach of fiduciary duty if they did not warn you about the downside of the litigation.  I bring this up because on several occasions I witnessed Hawk Barry assure many of you that you would not be responsible for Raceway’s attorney fees if Raceway prevailed.

Statutes of Limitations - Don't Wait to File Your Claim - In cases of lawyer malpractice, you only have one short year within which to file your lawsuit.  Basically, the year starts to run when two things happen: 1) the client knows or has a reasonable belief that the attorney was negligent; and 2) this negligence has caused damage to the client.  There are certain things which delay the start of the one year time period.  If you believe you have been the victim of Rosner’s and Barry’s misconduct or negligence, you should contact an experienced legal malpractice attorney as soon as possible.  One such attorney is Tetley Law Offices in Riverside.  They may be reached at contact  or by calling (951) 781-7500.

Judge Enters Original Raceway Decision - Raceway Wins & Rosner Loses

Latest Decision in Stone v Raceway Ford

"Pursuant to the Peremptory Writ of Mandate from the Court of Appeals, Fourth Appellate District, Division 2, dated may 24, 2011, this court vacates its April 16, 2010, Statement of decision and, instead, enters a judgment nun pro tunc to June 10, 2010, in conformity with that April 16, 2010, Statement of Decision."

The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Div. 2 Issued New Writ which directs trial court to vacate its reversal of the trial decision due to Nielson v Pearson


The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Div. 2 Issued new writ, directing the trial court to vacate its reversal of the trial decision, and to instead enter judgment in Raceway’s favor, nunc pro tunc to June 10, 2010, in conformity with the April 16 statement of descission.  Let The Fee Motions Begin!!!

Writ Decision of Court Appeals
  

Petition to Depublish the Nelson Opinion on Behalf of Auto Dealership Employees

Tom Owings Petition for Depublication of Nelson Opinion

Randel Macathren's Declaration for Raceway Ford's Backdating Case

Statement_of_Randall McCathren for Raceway Ford Backdating Cases

Nationally Known Experts Declaration on Backdating

Randell McCathern Declaration on Backdating in the Nelson Case

Another Judge Agrees With Our Novation and Consummantion and Decides Against Rosner's Plaintiff

Robledo v Perry Ford Backdating Decison

A Good Litigation Plan Can Stop Hal Rosner

So far Hal Rosner has been successful shaking down car dealers, insurance companies, and defense lawyers with smoke and mirrors about backdating.

Insurance companies more often than not hire “cheap” lawyer to defend dealers who do not have sufficient automotive litigation experience. This lack of experience makes it easy for them to buy into Rosner’s scam legal theories.  They then become predisposed to settle rather than risk losing.  A few proceed but without a workable defense plan are doomed to failure.   This scenario is exactly what Rosner counts on.  He has spent six years perfecting this scam and most defense attorneys have not defended a single back dating case.  If insurance companies were smart they would hire attorneys that can win no matter what their hourly rate.  In the long run the client and the insurance company would come out ahead.

Settling has only fed the monster and Rosner is filing dozens of new suits across the state.  Dealers and insurance companies must beat him in court and recover fees from his plaintiffs; that is how he will be stopped. He is much too greedy to go away on his own and so far he has succeeded by intimidation not legal acumen.   

Hopefully, this site will become a place where strategies and tactics can be exchanged and be a resource for dealers and their lawyers.   For my part I will continue to post information from lawyers who have been successful against Rosner in hopes they will benefit Rosner’s latest targets.

These entries are my opinions and the documents speak for themselves.

Charles "Mike" Michaelis The Expert of all Automotive Experts Opines on Backdating

Mike Michaelis Outlines How to Defend Backdating

Charles "Mike" Michaelis

  - Lawyer Profile
 

Charles "Mike" Michaelis

Of Counsel
 
Prenovost, Normandin, 
Bergh & Dawe, 
A Professional Corporation

2122 North Broadway, Suite 200
Santa Ana, California  92706-2614
(Orange Co.)

Telephone: 714-602-3843
Fax: 714-835-2889
http://www.PNBD.com





Experience & Credentials
 


Practice Areas Dealership Law; Automotive Franchises and Dealerships; Administrative Law; Financial Institutions Litigation; Creditors Rights; Collections
 
University California State University of Long Beach, B.A., cum laude, 1972
 
Law School Southwestern University School of Law, J.D., 1975
 
Admitted 1975, California
 
Memberships Orange County Bar Association.
 
Special Agencies Orange County Automobile Dealers Association; Long Beach New Vehicle Dealers Association; San Diego Automobile Dealers Association.
 
Biography Author, "California Automobile Dealer's Handbook of Vehicle Registration Practices and Procedures"; Author, "Handbook of Vehicle Advertising in California"; Author, "California Auto Dealer's Handbook of Credit Report Use and Creditor Obligations". Managing Editor, "Southwestern Law Review". Judge Pro Tem, South Orange County Municipal Court.




Kellie Christianson’s Blue Print to defeat Backdating Allegations

How Raceway Won - The Blueprint to defeating Backdating Claims

Loverso v Hallen Rosner & Christopher "Hawk" Barry

Click below to see the compaint in Loverso v. Rosner

Hawk and Hal Get Sued!
 
 

Ethics Expert Opinion About Rosner Fee Agreement

Ethics Expert Opinion About Rosner Fee Agreement


Boyd Lemon was hired to look at the Sisneros v Shaver Auto Case on behalf of Carol Sisneros.  Mr. Lemon has emphasized litigation and trial work in his practice, and for the past 20 years has emphasized legal malpractice, attorney fee disputes and other attorney conduct matters.  He has been the litigation department chair of three law firms, including one with more than 125 attorneys; and has been on the executive committee of two of those firms and the managing director of one.  As litigation department chair he was responsible for each firm’s billings in litigation matters. 

 

Clink on the Link to see Mr. Lemon’s thought on Rosner Fee's.




Malpractise Epert Opinion About Rosner Tactics

Latest Rosner Sham Suit Alledging Inaccurate DMV Fees Is Completely Defensible - Don’t Cave In

Rosner's latest scam lawsuits involves alleged ASFA violations due to inaccurate license fees on the RISC.  Almost every dealer in California violated the ASFA according to Rosner.   It is rumored that HARCO settled a case with Rosner in Southern California involving inaccurate DMV fees for $500K.  If so, shame on them because this so called violation is completely defensible as is proved by this recent  Third District Appellate Court Holding:


Bermudez v. Fulton Auto Depot LLC

HAWK'S INVITATION TO REMEDIAL ETHICS SCHOOL - DID HE FAIL?



I assisted Carol Sisneros in a Complaint to the California Bar, which resulted in the following letter being sent.  Ms. Sisneros gave me the letter when she recieved from the Bar and here it is.Please click on the link below to see the letter.

(The Bar gets Christopher "Hawk" Barry's name mixed up on the letter, but it is Hawk Barry they are talking about.  You got to wonder about a guy who changes his anme to Hawk.  I lovingly refer to him has Hawky Puck!


Hawks Bar Invitation to Ethic School