DEVELOPMENTS IN THE RAYGOZA CLASS ACTION MATTER

Court documents posted at PushTrafficSwindle give news of the latest developments in the class action suit filed against John Paul Raygoza and his online business ventures.

My understanding of events up to now:

  • Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Douglas Mattern, et al v. Push Traffic, et al filed motions to amend the complaint (Docs 79 and 80) on January 30, 2011.
  • Raygoza’s lawyers, Neufeld, Marks, Gralnek and Maker (NMGM), filed for an extension of time to consider the amended suit.
  • David Sipes lawyers filed a motion to withdraw as his counsel (Doc 86-2) on February 28, 2011.
  • The judge gave the defendants  an extension of 21 days to file a “pleading responsive to the Second Amended Complaint” (Doc 94) on March 17, 2011.
  • In the meantime, criminal charges were filed against Raygoza on April 14, 2011. On April 27, 2011 Raygoza, Burleson and Molina were arrested and jailed on charges of kidnapping, torture, and a weapons related offence (PDFs of jail records and Raygoza “rap sheet” on PushTrafficSwindle site)
  • Raygoza has since been released on reduced bail; the other two remain in different LA jails. Court date for that case June 7, 2011.
  • Timothy L. Neufeld filed a motion (Docs 108 and 109) on May 2, 2011 to withdraw as counsel for Raygoza – that matter to be dealt with June 6, 2011.

The newest court documents to which I have access are Docs 113, 114 and 115 – PDFs at PushTrafficSwindle.com. My interpretation of the documents, (acknowledging my own inexperience with legalese) follows.

Doc 113, filed by Jonathan Levy (attorney for the plaintiffs in the Raygoza class action suit) on behalf of the plaintiffs, opposes the defendants’ application for even more time to “consider” and respond to the Second Amended Complaint.

The reasons being that while the plaintiffs’ attorneys have been dealing in good faith, the defendants and their attorneys have been less than forthcoming in their communication – attorneys even concealing, at one point, the lack of communication and cooperation with their own client.

Since Raygoza must appear in court June 7 to answer the criminal charges against him, the court date of June 6 in the matter of his attorney’s motion to withdraw their services in the class action matter means time is “of the essence”. Any more stalling tactics in the civil matter jeopardizes the plaintiffs’ right to a reasonable and timely conclusion to their action.

Doc 114, appears to me to be the judge’s notice to the defendants’ counsel (NMGM) that they must notify Raygoza et al that corporations and associations may not legally appear in court without a lawyer. If they choose to do so they risk sanctions including a possible default judgement against them in the class action.

The judge stipulated that NMGM must serve Raygoza with a copy of her “order” and “written notification that defendant John Raygoza must appear at the hearing on the Motion on June 6, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. if no substitution of attorney has been filed by that date….. Failure to comply with this Order shall result in the imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to the entry of default against Defendants.”

(Raygoza may appear by telephone if NMGM makes the required arrangements)

Doc 115 is the proof that NMGM served the required documents to Raygoza personally at his Beverly Hills (penthouse) address.

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: