This document is a response opposing a motion to set aside a default judgment against Murdoch Group, Inc. and requesting sanctions. It summarizes that Dawn Estep and her company Murdoch Group, Inc. were properly served with the complaint but failed to respond, leading to a default being entered. It disputes claims that the default was improper, noting that Murdoch Group was not represented by counsel at the time and refutes assertions about the timing and nature of contacts with various attorneys regarding potential representation of the defendants.

1. JOHN H. THALER, SBN 150290
1 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN H. THALER
18034 Ventura Boulevard, #289
2 Encino, CA 91316
818-206-4402 ** fax 818-206-4473
3
4
Attorney for Plaintiff *******
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT
10
*******, an individual, ) Case No.: SC 102192
11 )
) PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITON TO MOTION
12
Plaintiff, ) TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT OF
) MURDOCH GROUP, INC. AND
13
vs. ) REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE
) SUM OF $2,325.00 AGAINST
14 DAWN ESTEP, an individual, aka DAWN ) DEFENDANTS ESTEP AND MURDOCH
STROUD, an individual, MURDOCH ) GROUP, INC.
15 GROUP LIMITED, LLC, a Nevada limited )
liability company, MURDOCH GROUP, ) DATE: November 3, 2009
16
INC., a Wyoming corporation, and DOES 1 ) TIME: 9:00 A.M.
) DEPT: X
17 through 25, inclusive, )
) [The Honorable Lisa Hart Cole presiding]
18 )
Defendants. )
19
20
21
22 DECLARATION OF *******
23 I, *******, do declare:
24 1. I am the Plaintiff in the above matter.
25 2. The gravamen of my Complaint concerns various false representations made to me by
26 Ms. Estep, on behalf of herself and on behalf of her Company and her Corporation.
27 These false representations led me to provide monies for the purchase of stock that has
28
1
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

2. 1 never materialized and led me to forego the sale of my clothing company,
2 **************, based on buyers Ms. Estep represented she had obtained.
3
4 3. When I first discovered that Ms. Estep was a habitual liar, as set forth in my
5 Complaint, I confronted her. She made various threats to me and to my (now
6 former) assistant of bodily harm. Many of these threats were sent as e-mails or left
7 as voice messages on my voice mail. I have set forth many of the threats in my
8 Complaint.
9
10 4. Shortly after filing and serving the Complaint, both my former assistant and I
11 received more threats from Ms. Estep. In fact, Ms. Estep left message for me twice
12 on April 17, 2009 and once on April 29, 2009. In the first set of message, Ms. Estep
13 threatened me by stating that I had better call her back or face unspecified
14 “consequences.” In the last call, she stated, “You are making a very big mistake by
15 not taking my telephone calls.” And, “You will pay for this.”
16
17 5. Ms. Estep also sent an e-mail on April 14, 2009 to my former assistant stating,
18 “Strategically, a bad move. You are toast. TOAST.” This is apparently the first
19 date that Ms. Estep attempted to threaten my attorney, John H. Thaler.
20
21 6. Ms. Estep currently has criminal charges pending against her in the State of Texas,
22 specifically in Austin, Texas, concerning check fraud. She was arrested on or about
23 September 15, 2008. Also, since late last year, I have discovered other individuals
24 who also have been defrauded by Ms. Estep. To that end, I am aware of additional
25 suits that will be filed against her, her company and her corporation shortly.
26
27
28
2
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

3. 1 7. Additionally, detectives with the Santa Monica Police Department have been trying
2 to interview Ms. Estep concerning issues in my case and similar complaints they
3 have received from others. To date, apparently Ms. Estep has not been cooperative.
4
5 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and if called as a
6 witness, I could and would testify competently thereto.
7 Executed on this 20th day of October, 2009 at Encino, California.
8
9
__________________________
10
*******I. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS
11
Mr. Rogers would be proud. Apparently, Dawn Estep, Murdoch Group, Inc., and their
12
attorney, Eric H. Saiki, have entered the Land of Make Believe. Through omissions of pertinent
13
facts and misstatement of other facts, Ms. Estep and Mr. Saiki attempt to mislead this Court.
14
There was no “Ethical Failure”, there was no “Ethical Obligation” violated, and there was no
15
rush to submit a Request for Entry of Default when Murdoch was “represented by counsel.”
16
Why? Because Murdoch Group, Inc. was not represented by counsel at the time the
17
Request for Entry of Default was made. In fact, Mr. Saiki did not represent any party in
18
this matter until two months after said Request was made and entered.
19
Instead, the true facts are as follows:
20
This matter involves the fraudulent acts of Dawn Estep, individually, and by and through
21
her corporation, Murdoch Group, Inc. (“Corporation”), and by and through company, Murdoch
22
Group Limited, LLC (“Company”). It is no accident that the names of the company and of the
23
corporation are the same as the entities were used interchangeably.
24
The Corporation is registered in Wyoming and, according to the California Secretary of
25
State, is not registered to do business in California. A true and correct copy of the Wyoming
26
entity information is attached hereto as Exhibit “1” and incorporated herein by reference. The
27
Company is registered in Nevada. However, according to the Nevada Secretary of State, the
28
3
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

4. 1 Company was suspended in or about 2005. A copy of the Nevada entity records is attached
2 hereto as Exhibit “2” and incorporated herein by reference.
3 Both entities show Corporate Services Group located at 723 S. Casino Center Boulevard,
4 2nd Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89101 as the agent for service of process. Curiously, the service
5 information for the Company actually comes from the California Business Portal. A true and
6 correct copy of that information is attached hereto as Exhibit “3” and incorporated herein by
7 reference.
8 Curiously, the status of the Company in California shows as “Active” at least as of March
9 2, 2009. This information directly contradicts the information obtained from the State of
10 Nevada. So it appears that Ms. Estep was operating her Company in California for years after its
11 suspension in Nevada.
12 As to the Corporation, it purports an address in Newport Beach, California but, according
13 to the California Secretary of State, it has never filed for Foreign Corporation Status in
14 California. Therefore, it is operating with California as its sole place of business without filing
15 the requisite tax return or paying the requisite taxes. A true and correct copy of the company
16 profile is attached hereto as Exhibit “4” and incorporated herein by reference.1
17 The Summons and Complaint in this matter were filed on March 16, 2009. Upon their
18 return, Plaintiff’s attorney immediately made arrangements to serve the Corporation and the
19 Company. Both Company and Corporation were served at the address of the Las Vegas agent on
20 or about March 27, 2009.
21 On or about April 14, 2009, Plaintiff’s attorney received a voice message from Dawn
22 Estep. In that message she acknowledged service of the Summons and Complaints on the
23 Corporation and Company. She stated, “You don’t know the whole story. If I were you, I would
24 consider dismissing this stuff. You better talk to your client.” She also stated, “I keep insane
25 notes and I coming after your client.” Plaintiff’s attorney did not respond.
26
27
1
The failure of Corporation to register in California when this state appears to be its principal and only place of business may
28 prevent it from seeking to set aside this default or being represented by counsel before this Court See Leasequip, Inc. v. Dapeer,
103 Cal. App.4th 394, 402 (2002).
4
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

5. 1 On or about April 19, 2009, Ms. Estep left another voice message with Plaintiff’s
2 attorney. This time, she insisted that Plaintiff’s attorney call her so that she could tell me her
3 version of the “facts.” No return call was made.
4 On or about April 21, 2009, Plaintiff’s attorney received a telephone call from an attorney
5 in the Los Angeles office of the Pillsbury law office. The attorney stated that he and his firm
6 were acquainted with Ms. Estep’s husband, an attorney in Texas, and were considering
7 representation of her in the instant matter. The attorneys then discussed the case for
8 approximately fifteen (15) minutes. Plaintiff’s attorney told the Pillsbury attorney that his client
9 had made telephone calls to my office and threatening calls to Plaintiff (See Declarations of John
10 H. Thaler and of ******* filed concurrently herewith) and that he needed to stop the same
11 forthwith. At the conclusion, the attorney stated that he would speak to Ms. Estep about the
12 telephone calls and that he would let Plaintiff’s attorney know if the firm decided it would
13 represent any or all of the defendants.
14 In her declaration, Ms. Estep omits that she attempted to hire Pillsbury or that an attorney
15 for the firm spoke with Plaintiff’s attorney directly in mid April 2009 or that said attorney was
16 fully aware of the service dates for the Summons and Complaints.
17 On or about April 29, 2009, Ms. Estep called Plaintiff’s attorney for a third time. Once
18 again she left a hostile voice mail stating that she was going to sue Plaintiff and that Plaintiff’s
19 attorney “had better be prepared.” Once again, Plaintiff’s attorney did not return the call.
20 On or about April 30, having received no responsive pleading and no request for any
21 extension of time, Plaintiff’s attorney prepared defaults against the Corporation and the
22 Company. The Court received the Requests on or about May 1, 2009 and entered the defaults on
23 or about May 4, 2009.
24 Meanwhile, shortly after the Requests had been prepared and sent to the court clerk, on or
25 about April 30, 2009, Plaintiff’s attorney received a telephone call from William Collier, Jr. He
26 identified himself as an attorney for Keesal, Young & Logan. During the conversation, he stated
27 that his office had a relationship with Ms. Estep’s husband and that his office was considering
28
5
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

6. 1 whether to represent any or all of the defendants. Plaintiff’s attorney then discussed with Mr.
2 Collier the facts of the case.
3 Further, Plaintiff’s attorney informed him that Plaintiff’s attorney had already prepared
4 the Requests for Entry of Default on the Corporation and on the Company. Plaintiff’s attorney
5 also informed Mr. Collier that he was not the first attorney to contact him. Upon stating this, Mr.
6 Collier told Plaintiff’s attorney that Ms. Estep did not inform him that she had already spoken to
7 other counsel. He asked Plaintiff’s attorney to provide him with the name and number of the
8 other attorney. Plaintiff’s attorney did. Mr. Collier then stated that he did not believe he or his
9 firm would take the case but that he would let Plaintiff’s attorney know if they did.
10 In her declaration, Ms. Estep states that she first spoke with Mr. Collier prior to April 17,
11 2009 and at that time he agreed to represent her. That statement is false and Ms. Estep knows it
12 to be false. In addition to the lack of any declaration from Mr. Collier, this Court should take
13 note that Plaintiff’s attorney contacted Mr. Collier shortly after receiving the within Motion. Mr.
14 Collier states that he was not contacted by Ms. Estep or her attorney regarding this Motion and
15 that he never agreed that he or the Keesal office would represent her. He further states that after
16 speaking with Plaintiff’s attorney on or about April 30, 2009, he informed Ms. Estep that
17 Requests for Entry of Default had been prepared and provided to the Court.
18 As a result, Ms. Estep’s comment that somehow the defaults were taken without her
19 knowledge is utterly false.
20 Corporation’s attorney, Eric H. Saiki, first contacted Plaintiff’s attorney on or about May
21 12, 2009. He stated that Ms. Estep was seeking representation concerning the instant matter. As
22 Plaintiff’s attorney had done previously, Plaintiff’s attorney discussed for at least fifteen (15)
23 minutes the nature of the case. In fact, Mr. Saiki and Plaintiff’s attorney discussed in great detail
24 audio tapes in Plaintiff’s possession consisting of voice mail messages left by Ms. Estep on
25 Plaintiff’s voice mail. Therein, she states all of the quotes attributed to her in the Complaint.
26 These statements squarely place liability on her, her company and on her corporation. Mr. Saiki
27 specifically asked whether Plaintiff’s attorney had heard the tapes. Plaintiff’s attorney told him
28
6
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

7. 1 he had heard all of the recorded voice mail messages left by his client and that Plaintiff’s
2 attorney could confirm that the quotes attributed to his client in the Complaint were accurate.
3 Plaintiff’s attorney also told Mr. Saiki that he was now the third attorney to contact him
4 about possible representation. Mr. Saiki stated that he was unaware that Ms. Estep had ever
5 spoken to any other attorneys. Plaintiff’s attorney provided to Mr. Saiki the names and telephone
6 numbers of the other attorneys.
7 At the end of the conversation, Mr. Saiki asked whether Plaintiff’s attorney would agree
8 to set aside the defaults on the Corporation and on the Company. Plaintiff’s attorney told Mr.
9 Saiki that at that time he was not prepared to do anything especially when Mr. Saiki had not
10 decided whether to represent Ms. Estep. Mr. Saiki’s implication in his declaration that somehow
11 he was representing any defendants as of the May 12, 2009 telephone call is totally false.
12 On May 18, 2009, Plaintiff’s attorney received a letter from Mr. Saiki allegedly
13 confirming that Plaintiff’s attorney would not agree to set aside the defaults. Mr. Saiki has
14 attached that letter as Exhibit “A” to his declaration. The Court should take note however that in
15 his declaration (and in the letter) Mr. Saiki does not state that he was representing Ms. Estep or
16 her Corporation at the time he contacted Plaintiff’s attorney or that he was representing any
17 defendants as of the May 18, 2009 letter. And according to Mr. Saiki, he was not.
18 In fact, in Mr. Saiki’s Exhibit “B”, another letter to me dated July 7, 2009, he states that
19 his office “has recently been retained by Ms. Dawn [Estep] Stroud and Murdoch Group, Inc.
20 In paragraph 3 of his declaration, Mr. Saiki refers to that letter and decries that Plaintiff’s
21 attorney did not respond. That statement is false. On that same date, Plaintiff’s attorney sent a
22 letter to Mr. Saiki stating that Plaintiff’s attorney was out of town and not available to provide
23 portions of the file he requested until July 15, 2009. A true and correct copy of my letter to Mr.
24 Saiki is attached hereto as Exhibit “4” and incorporated herein by reference.
25 Also of note: a Case Management Conference was scheduled with this Court for July 6,
26 2009 at 8:30 a.m. The Notice of the CMC is on the front page of the Complaint. Mr. Saiki and
27 Ms. Estep should have been and would have been fully aware of the CMC. As the Court is
28 aware, neither Ms. Estep nor any attorney on her behalf appeared.
7
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

8. 1 It is nothing short of remarkable that Mr. Saiki could not have appeared on July 6, 2009
2 but could send Plaintiff’s counsel a letter demanding documents from the case file the following
3 day.
4 On or about August 10, 2009, Requests for Admission were sent to Mr. Saiki. In
5 September 2009, responses were sent. During this time, Mr. Saiki never once contacted me or
6 ever mentioned any request to set aside the default. So even once he began representation of Ms.
7 Estep, three (3) months elapsed prior to the motion. Strangely, Mr. Saiki makes no attempt to
8 explain this.
9 Instead, it appears that having reviewed some of the audio tapes, having been required to
10 respond to Requests for Admission, and sensing that liability is a foregone conclusion, now Ms.
11 Estep wants to defend her corporation.
12 II. DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO MAKE ANY SHOWING
13 THAT ITS FAILURE TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING
14 RESULTED FROM INADVERTENCE OR EXCUSABLE NEGLECT.
15 Defendant Corporation knew it had been served and sought legal counsel. But no attempt
16 was made to seek an extension to respond to the complaint. After the default was entered, it
17 waited inexplicably for four months before pursuing the within motion. Simply, Corporation has
18 failed to make any showing whatsoever of inadvertence or excusable neglect. Therefore the
19 motion should be denied.
20 Unless an Application for Relief is accompanied by an “attorney affidavit of fault”, relief
21 is discretionary and must be based on a showing of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable
22 neglect.” Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b); see Lorenz v. Commercial Accept. Ins. Co.,
23 Cal.App.4th 981, 989 (1995).
24 Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default is accompanied by the Declaration of Dawn
25 Estep Stroud, a defendant and the only known shareholder of the Corporation. The Declaration
26 of Defendant’s attorney, Eric H. Saiki, is not an “attorney affidavit of fault.” As a result, in order
27 to set aside the default, Defendant must sustain her burden of proving “mistake, inadvertence,
28 surprise of excusable neglect.” Defendant has not met its burden.
8
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

9. 1 Mislaying of process, forgetfulness, or intentional disregard of service are not “mistake,
2 inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” as those terms are used in Code of Civil Procedure
3 section 473(b), and they do not require the Court to set aside default. Price v. Hibbs, 225
4 Cal.App.2d 209 (1964). To be entitled to relief, the acts, which brought the default, must have
5 been the acts of a reasonable prudent person under the same circumstances. Conway v.
6 Municipal Court, 107 Cal.App.3d 1009 (1980).
7 Relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is proper where defendant was
8 mistaken as to some fact material to the defendant’s duty to respond, by reason of which
9 defendant failed to make a timely response. See Lieberman v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1967) 249
10 Cal.App.2d 515. Mistake of fact is when a person understands the facts to be other than as they
11 are. Hodge Sheet Metal Products v. Palm Springs Riviera Hotel (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 653.
12 The Corporation, by and through Ms. Estep, claims inadvertence and excusable neglect
13 as the grounds for its motion. Inadvertence is defined as lack of heedfulness or attentiveness;
14 and in the abstract, is no plea on which to vacate a default. Baratti v Baratti, 109 Cal.App.2d 917
15 (1952).
16 Excusable neglect is by far the most common ground for obtaining discretionary relief
17 from default. The issue, however, boils down to one very simple consideration – whether the
18 moving party has shown a reasonable excuse for the default. Davis v. Thayer, 113 Cal.App.3d
19 892 (1980). The test in determining whether a party acted with excusable neglect is reasonable
20 diligence. In the absence of an “Attorney affidavit of fault”, the burden is on the moving party to
21 show that neglect was excusable, i.e., that the default could not have been avoided through the
22 exercise of ordinary care. Jackson v. Bank of America, 141 Cal.App.3d 55, 58 (1983).
23 Evidence that the defendant was seriously ill, feeble, or unable to understand that he was
24 being served with process is sufficient to justify discretionary relief under Code of Civil
25 Procedure section 473(b). See Kesselman v. Kesselman, 212 Cal.App.2d 196, 207-208 (1963).
26 In a hearing on a motion to set aside a default and default judgment, the credibility of the
27 persons executing the Declarations and the weight to be given to their contents is for the trial
28 court. Conway v. Municipal Court, 107 Cal.App.3d 1009 (1980).
9
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

10. 1 In this matter, Ms. Estep and her corporation were fully aware that the Corporation had
2 been served. In fact, Ms. Estep contacted two separate attorney. Moreover, she telephoned
3 Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney threatening each and claiming that she was filing her own
4 complaint against Plaintiff. She visited her current attorney for the first time shortly after the
5 default was entered against the Corporation but chose not to retain his services for two months.
6 And when she did retain his services, she did not retain them for the Corporation. She could
7 have but inexplicably she did not. And then she waited an additional two months before filing
8 this motion.
9 Nothing herein can possibly be categorized as excusable neglect. Instead, it appears that
10 Ms. Estep chose to wait through the litigation and early discovery to gauge how much trouble
11 she and her business entities were in. Now, having discovered that the evidence is squarely
12 against her, she seeks to set aside the Corporation’s default.
13 It is simply not inadvertent or excusable neglect to know that a suit has been filed,
14 threaten the party bringing the action, harass his lawyer on three occasions, discuss the matter
15 with at least two well respected attorneys at two well respected firms, do nothing, then, after
16 default has been entered, attempt to retain a third attorney and his firm, again do nothing for two
17 months, Answer the Complaint on behalf of yourself individually, do nothing for another two
18 months, and then request that the default be set aside.
19 Ms. Estep tries to land on the excuse that somehow she had retained Mr. Collier. But she
20 does not submit any declaration from him. Moreover, he was unaware of the motion and denies
21 that he ever agreed to represent Ms. Estep or her company or her corporation.
22 As there is no showing of excusable neglect, Plaintiff requests that the motion be denied.
23 III. SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON
24 DEFEDANTS ESTEP AND MURDOCH GROUP, INC.
25 If relief from default is based on evidence other than “attorney affidavit of fault, the
26 Court may order the Defendant to pay the costs, including attorney fees, incurred by the
27 Plaintiff…” Rogalski v. Nabers Cadillac, 11 Cal.App.4th 816, 83 (1992).
28
10
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

11. 1 In the event that this Court grants the motion, Plaintiff’s attorney request on behalf of my
2 client that Murdoch Group, Inc. and Ms. Estep, jointly and severally, be ordered to pay attorneys
3 fees and costs for my appearance at the Case Management Conference on July 6, 2009 and for
4 the costs of preparing the Request for Entry of Default as to the Corporation. Plaintiff’s attorney
5 charge $300.00 per hour. It took three-quarters of an hour to prepare the Request. The
6 appearance for the CMC took one hour. As a result, in the event that the Default is set aside,
7 Corporation and Estep should be ordered to pay the sum of $525.00.
8 Additionally, sanctions should be imposed for Plaintiff having to oppose the within
9 motion. In preparing the Opposition, three and one-half hours were spent reading the motion and
10 preparing the Opposition. Plaintiff’s counsel anticipates an additional half hour to review any
11 Reply and tow and one-half hours appearing at the time of hearing. Therefore, the additional
12 sum of $1,800.00 in sanctions should be imposed.
13 In the “Conclusion” of the Motion, the Corporation opines that no sanctions or fess
14 should be awarded because the default against the Corporation was taken while it was
15 represented by counsel. This claim is patently false. Moreover, neither Mr. Saiki nor Ms. Estep
16 has provided the Court any executed retainer agreement or any letter to my office evidencing
17 anything to the contrary. This false statement is emblematic of the bad faith that is the within
18 motion.
19 //
20 IV. CONCLUSION
21 Defendant Corporation has failed to make any showing of excusable neglect or
22 inadvertence. Rather, the failures to file a responsive pleading appear to be deliberate. And it is
23 only now that Ms. Estep has seen the preliminary discovery and knows she and her businesses
24 are in trouble that the within motion has been filed. That explains the false and misleading
25 statements she and her attorney make in support of thereof.
26 The motion should be denied and sanctions should be awarded.
27 Dated: October 20, 2009 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN H. THALER
28
11
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

12. By:______________________________
1
JOHN H. THALER, Attorney for
2
Plaintiff *******
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

13. 1 DECLARATION OF JOHN H. THALER
2 I, John H. Thaler, do declare:
3 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all courts in the State of California and I
4 am the attorney of record for Plaintiff *******.
5 2. I have reviewed the Motion filed by Defendant Murdoch Group, Inc. and the declarations
6 of its attorney, Eric Saiki, and principal shareholder, Dawn Estep. It is quite evident that
7 Ms. Estep and Mr. Saiki have intentionally misled this court by omitting certain facts and
8 misstating other facts. Simply put, they are not telling the truth. To wit:
9 3. This matter involves the fraudulent acts of Dawn Estep, individually, and by and through
10 her corporation, Murdoch Group, Inc. (“Corporation”), and by and through company,
11 Murdoch Group Limited, LLC (“Company”). It is no accident that the names of the
12 company and of the corporation are the same as Plaintiff alleges the entities were used
13 interchangeably.
14 4. The Corporation is registered in Wyoming and, according to the California Secretary of
15 State, is not registered to do business in California. A true and correct copy of the
16 Wyoming entity information is attached hereto as Exhibit “1” and incorporated herein by
17 reference. The Company is registered in Nevada. However, according to the Nevada
18 Secretary of State, the Company was dissolved in or about 2005. A copy of the Nevada
19 entity records is attached hereto as Exhibit “2” and incorporated herein by reference.
20 5. Both entities show Corporate Services Group located at 723 S. Casino Center Boulevard,
21 2nd Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89101 as the agent for service of process. Curiously, the
22 service information for the Company actually comes from the California Business Portal.
23 A true and correct copy of that information is attached hereto as Exhibit “3” and
24 incorporated herein by reference.
25 6. Most notably, the status of the Company shows as “Active” at least as of March 2, 2009.
26 This information directly contradicts the information obtained from the State of Nevada.
27 So it appears that Ms. Estep was operating her Company in California for years after its
28 suspension in Nevada.
13
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

14. 1 7. As to the Corporation, it purports an address in Newport Beach, California but according
2 to the California Secretary of State, it has never filed for Foreign Corporation Status in
3 California. Therefore, it appears to be operating in California as its sole place of business
4 without filing the requisite tax return or paying the requisite taxes. A true and correct
5 copy of the company profile is attached hereto as Exhibit “4” and incorporated herein by
6 reference.
7 8. The Summons and Complaint in this matter were filed on March 16, 2009. Upon their
8 return, I immediately made arrangements to serve the Corporation and the Company.
9 Both Company and Corporation were served at the address of the Las Vegas agent on or
10 about March 27, 2009.
11 9. On or about April 14, 2009, I received a voice message from Dawn Estep. In that
12 message she acknowledged service of the Summons and Complaints on the Corporation
13 and Company. She stated, “You don’t know the whole story. If I were you, I would
14 consider dismissing this stuff. You better talk to your client.” She also stated, “I keep
15 insane notes. And I am coming after your client.” I did not respond.
16 10. On or about April 19, 2009, Ms. Estep left another voice message. This time, she insisted
17 that I call her so that she could tell me her version of the “facts.”
18 11. On or about April 21, 2009, I received a telephone call from an attorney in the Los
19 Angeles office of the Pillsbury law office. The attorney stated that he and his firm were
20 acquainted with Ms. Estep’s husband, an attorney in Texas, and were considering
21 representation of her in the instant matter. We then discussed the case for approximately
22 fifteen (15) minutes. I told the attorney that his client had made telephone calls to my
23 office and threatening calls to my client (See Declaration of ******* filed concurrently
24 herewith) and that he needed to stop the same forthwith. At the conclusion, the attorney
25 stated that he would speak to Ms. Estep about the telephone calls that he would let me
26 know if the firm decided it would represent any or all of the defendants.
27
28
14
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

15. 1 12.In her declaration, Ms. Estep omits that she attempted to hire Pillsbury or that an
2 attorney for the firm spoke with me directly or that said attorney was fully aware of the
3 service dates for the Summons and Complaints.
4 13. On or about April 29, 2009, Ms. Estep called me for a third time. Once again she left a
5 hostile voice mail stating that she was going to sue my client and that I “had better be
6 prepared.” Once again, I did not return the call.
7 14. On or about April 30, having received no responsive pleading and no request for any
8 extension of time, I prepared defaults against the Corporation and the Company. The
9 Court received the Requests on or about May 1, 2009 and entered the defaults on or about
10 May 4, 2009.
11 15. On or about April 30, 2009, I received a telephone call from William Collier, Jr. He
12 identified himself as an attorney for Keesal, Young & Logan. During the conversation,
13 he stated that his office had a relationship with Ms. Estep’s husband and that his office
14 was considering whether to represent any or all of the defendants. I then discussed with
15 Mr. Collier the facts of the case. Further, I informed him that I had already prepared the
16 Requests for Entry of Default on the Corporation and on the Company. I also informed
17 Mr. Collier that he was not the first attorney to contact me. Upon stating this, Mr. Collier
18 told me that Ms. Estep did not inform him that she had already spoken to other counsel.
19 He asked me to provide him with the name and number of the other attorney. I did. Mr.
20 Collier then stated that he did not believe he or his firm would take the case but that he
21 would let me know if they decided otherwise.
22 16. In her declaration, Ms. Estep states that she first spoke with Mr. Collier prior to April 17,
23 2009 and at that time he agreed to represent her. That statement is false and Ms. Estep
24 knows it to be false. In addition to the lack of any declaration from Mr. Collier, this
25 Court should take note that I contacted Mr. Collier shortly after receiving the within
26 Motion. Mr. Collier states that he was not contacted by Ms. Estep or her attorney
27 regarding this Motion and that he never agreed that he or the Keesal office would
28 represent her. He further states that after speaking with me on or about April 30, 2009,
15
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

16. 1 he informed Ms. Estep that Requests for Entry of Default had been prepared and
2 provided to the Court.
3 17. As a result, Ms. Estep’s comment that somehow the defaults were taken without her
4 knowledge is utterly false. In fact, given that the clerk did not enter the defaults until two
5 weeks after they were submitted, an Answer could have been filed during that time.
6 Instead, until the filing of this motion, Ms. Estep has done nothing.
7 18. Now to Mr. Saiki’s declaration: Mr. Saiki first contacted me on or about May 12, 2009.
8 He stated that Ms. Estep was seeking representation concerning the instant matter. As I
9 had done previously, I discussed for at least fifteen (15) minutes the nature of the case.
10 In fact, Mr. Saiki and I discussed in great detail audio tapes in my client’s possession
11 consisting of voice mail messages left by Ms. Estep on my client’s voice mail wherein
12 she states all of the quotes attributed to her in the Complaint. Mr. Saiki specifically asked
13 whether I had heard the tapes. I told him I had heard all of the recorded voice mail
14 messages left by his client and that I could confirm that the quotes attributed to his client
15 in the Complaint were accurate.
16 19.I also told Mr. Saiki that he was now the third attorney to contact me about possible
17 representation. Mr. Saiki stated that he was unaware that Ms. Estep had ever spoken to
18 any other attorneys. I provided to Mr. Saiki the names and telephone numbers of the
19 other attorneys.
20 20. At the end of the conversation, Mr. Saiki asked me whether I would agree to set aside the
21 defaults on the Corporation and on the Company. I told Mr. Saiki that I was not prepared
22 to do anything especially when he had not decided whether to represent Ms. Estep.
23 21. Mr. Saiki’s implication in his declaration that somehow Defendant were represented at
24 the time of the Requests for Entry of Default being filed is utterly false. And his
25 contention that California law requires an attorney to refrain from entering a default when
26 two different attorneys and two different firms have rejected representation is absurd. Is
27 Mr. Saiki really opining that I had an ethical obligation to contact attorneys who never
28 agreed to take Defendants’ case simply because Ms. Estep chose to meet with them?
16
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

17. 1 Either Mr. Saiki didn’t read the Guidelines on Civility and Professionalism or he truly
2 does not understand them.
3 22.On May 18, 2009, I received a letter from Mr. Saiki allegedly confirming that I would
4 not agree to set aside the defaults. Mr. Saiki has attached that letter as Exhibit “A” to his
5 declaration. The Court should take note however that in his declaration (and in the letter)
6 Mr. Saiki does not state that he was representing Ms. Estep or her Corporation at the time
7 he contacted me. And even according to Mr. Saiki, he was not.
8 23. In fact, in Mr. Saiki’s Exhibit “B”, another letter to me dated July 7, 2009, he states that
9 his office “has recently been retained by Ms. Dawn [Estep] Stroud and Murdoch Group,
10 Inc.
11 24. In paragraph 3 of his declaration, Mr. Saiki refers to that letter and decries that I did not
12 respond. That statement is false. On that same date, I sent a letter to Mr. Saiki stating
13 that I was out of town and not available to portions of the file he requested until July 15,
14 2009. A true and correct copy of my letter to Mr. Saiki is attached hereto as Exhibit “5”
15 and incorporated herein by reference.
16 25. Also of note: a Case Management Conference was scheduled with this Court for July 6,
17 2009 at 8:30 a.m. The Notice of the CMC is on the front page of the Complant. Mr.
18 Saiki and Ms. Estep should have been and would have been fully aware of the CMC. As
19 the Court is aware, neither Ms. Estep nor any attorney on her behalf appeared.
20 26. It is nothing short of remarkable that Mr. Saiki could not have appeared on July 6, 2009
21 but could send me a letter demanding documents from the case file the following day.
22 27. On or about August 10, 2009, Requests for Admission were sent to Mr. Saiki. In
23 September 2009, responses were sent. During this time, Mr. Saiki never once contacted
24 me or ever mentioned any request to set aside the default. So even once he began
25 representation of Ms. Estep, three (3) months elapsed prior to the motion. Strangely, Mr.
26 Saiki makes no attempt to explain this.
27 28. In the event that this Court grants the motion, I request on behalf of my client that
28 Murdoch Group, Inc. and Ms. Estep, jointly and severally, be ordered to pay attorneys
17
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

18. 1 fees and costs for my appearance at the Case Management Conference on July 6, 2009
2 and for the costs of preparing the Request for Entry of Default as to the Corporation. I
3 charge $300.00 per hour. It took three-quarters of an hour to prepare the Request. The
4 appearance for the CMC took one hour. As a result, in the event that the Default is set
5 aside, Corporation and Estep should be ordered to pay the sum of $525.00.
6 29. Additionally, sanctions should be imposed for Plaintiff having to oppose the within
7 motion. In preparing the Opposition, three and one-half hours were spent reading the
8 motion and preparing the Opposition. Plaintiff’s counsel anticipates an additional half
9 hour to review any Reply and tow and one-half hours appearing at the time of hearing.
10 Therefore, the additional sum of $1,800.00 in sanctions should be imposed.
11 30.In the “Conclusion” of the Motion, the Corporation opines that no sanctions or fess
12 should be awarded because the default against the Corporation was taken while it was
13 “represented by counsel.” This claim is patently false. The Defendants were not
14 represented by anyone. Rather, Ms. Estep met with lawyers who chose not to represent
15 her. I have no ethical or legal obligation to contact attorneys who have rejected
16 representing Ms. Estep and her “businesses.”
17 31.Moreover, neither Mr. Saiki nor Ms. Estep has provided the Court any executed retainer
18 agreement or any letter to my office evidencing anything to the contrary. This false
19 statement and its implication is emblematic of the bad faith that is the within motion,
20 especially as it fails to address the passage of the four months prior to the Corporation
21 filing this motion.
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //
18
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

19. 1 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and if called as a
2 witness, I could and would testify competently thereto.
3 Executed on this 20th day of October, 2009 at Encino, California.
4
__________________________
5
JOHN H. THALER
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT

20. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
OPPOSTION TO MURDOCH GROUP, INC.’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT