Alexander Baker
15911 Valley Wood Road
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Steve Glickman
Glickman & Glickman, A Law Corporation
9460 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 830
Beverly Hills, CA 91212
Defendant )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No.: BH 09S00432
Response to DEFENDEANT’S TRIAL BRIEF
Glickman Invokes a Non-Applicable Statue of Limitations
Defendant Glickman has asserted a 1 year statute of limitations in this matter, claiming that it is governed by CCP §340.6. §340.6 sets forth the time limitations on Legal Malpractice, i.e. negligence. The cause of action in this matter is fraud, not Legal Malpractice, and is properly governed by §CCP 338 (d). which clearly provides a 3 year limitation on actions arising from fraud. No
claim of Legal Malpractice, nor any sort of negligence is alleged in this case.Glickman Knowingly Flasifies a Date to Justify His Dismissing a Punitive Dagamges Claim in the Underlying Case
One glaring example of Glickman’s fraud was the hearing that took place on January 25, 2006 in the underlying fraud case against Surgeon Richard Fischel. Mr. Glickman agreed with, and did not oppose, a motion to strike the punitive damages claim from my fraud action. The basis for the motion to strike was §425.13, which indeed sets forth a two year limitation on seeking punitive damages against a health care practitioner. The limitation is 2 years after the originl complaint was filed, not after the damage occurred. From §425.13:
“The court shall not grant a motion allowing the filing of an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive damages if the motion for such an order is not filed within two years after the complaint or intitial pleading is filed . . .”
The original Medical Malpractice case of Baker vs. Fischel was filed October 10, 2003. The Fraud case of Baker vs. Fischel, seeking punitive damages, was written by attorney Steve Glickman, and filed in Orange County Municipal Court October 7, 2005. This is less than two years after the original complaint.
Thus, to deceive the court in the underlying case, defendant Glickman simply did not oppose the motion to strike. To deceive me, Glickman falsely tole me that there was a 2 year statute of limitations for punitive damages in a fraud action, counting from the date of injury. This assertion was fabricated out of whole cloth. To help ensure that I did not discover the deception, Glickman never showed me the defense motion, never cited the CCP statute to me, and forbind me from being present in the courtroom for the January 25, 2006 hearing.
To deceive the court now, in the present matter, defendant Glickman has employed the crudest of all tactics, falsifying a date. In his “DEFENDANT’S TRIAL BRIEF” Glickman states:
“Glickman did not substitute in as counsel for Baker until October 12, 2005”. (see exhibit 66 – Defendan’ts Trial Brief in Baker vs. Glickman)”.
Clearly defendant Steve Glickman filed the fraud complaint, Baker vs. Fischel, on October 7, 2005. The copy is stamped in the upper right hand corner as follows:
FILED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
OCT 07 2005
ALAN SLATER, Clerk of the Court
By E PERREAULT Deputy
(Please see exhibit 52 – Complaint, Baker vs. Fischel).
Thus, defendant Glickman has knowingly issued a provably false statement, under oath, about a material issue. I ask that the court find perjury, and punish defendant Glickman accordingly.
Dated this 30th day of April, 2009
Alexander Baker
15911 Valley Wood Road
Sherman Oaks, CA. 91403
No comments:
Post a Comment