$250,000 in compensatory + $1,250,000 punitive + personal injury
This is being pursued from multiple parties via separate torts.
The Compensatory and Punitive can only be collected one time thus there is overlap in these complaints.
More on Deck ...
TERMITE INSPECTOR FRAUD (Case 24CV001152) - Canary et al v Carriaga
Seeking $23,000 in Compensatory Damages and $115,000 in Punitive Damages
Fraud - 3 Counts (Actual or Constructive)
Alex Carriaga created a "non-bonafide" pre-sale termite inspection report as part of a scheme to sell a home for more than it was worth. His report contained as many as 10 violations of the Structural Pest Control Act. His report contained 3 material omissions valued at $23,000. Two of those omissions aligned identically with omissions on a Home Inspector's Report a week prior that indicates organization to omit defects.
Alex has been doing inspections physically unsupervised since 2008.
Canary v Carriaga ( Folders public pvt )
Summons (1 page) view
Cover Sheet ( 2 pages) view
Complaint ( 24 pages) view
-- Default Docs ---
1) Dec in Support of Default Judgement view
2) CIV 100 - Default view
3) JUD 100 - Judgment view
4) MC 030 - Interest view
5) MC 030 - Exhibits view
Complaint Exhibits
Group A (filed with complaint)
A1) Pro Se Requirement Dialogue (3 pages) view
A2) Industry Wide Frauds - Part 1 (7 pages) view
A3) Industry Wide Frauds - Part 2 (16 pages) view
A4) Visuals - Bayview 14 etc (12 pages) view
Group B (filed with complaint)
B1) TI 1 - Crawl Space Omissions ( 12 pages) view
B2) TI-2 - 2nd floor Attic Omission (8 pages) view
B3) TI-3 - Fascia Fraud (9 pages) view
B4) Carriaga's full report (11 pages) view
B5) Carriaga's License Info (8 pages) view
Group C (filed with Default Judgement)
C1) Jiminez v Capero view
C2) Jue v Smiser Visual view
C3) 8 Tiers of Fraud view
C4) Quotes from Contractor 1 view
C5) Quotes from Contractor 2 view
C6) Proof of Service Commentary view
C7) "Complete" report view
Not attached
Transaction Doc Fraud (8 pages) view
3/21/2024 - Filed
4/5/2024 - Served via Employer (4/12 mail)
40 days
5/23/2024 - Filed for Default/Default judgement
xxxx - Prove up TBD
-- Cancelled --
7/23/2024 - 9am / 13 / Vallarta
HOME INSPECTOR FRAUD (Case 24CV001176) - Canary et al v Vierra et al
Seeking $58,000 in Compensatory Damages and $290,000 in Punitive Damages
Fraud - 9 counts (Actual)
Robert Vierra and his Son Brannon Vierra created a "non-bonafide" pre-sale home inspection report as part of a scheme to sell a home for more than it was worth. His report contained 9 material omissions valued at $58,000 that any sincere inspectors would have called out with ease.. Two of those omissions aligned identically with omissions on a Home Inspector's Report a week prior that indicates organization to omit defects.
Robert Vierra claims to have done over 11,000 inspections since the late 1990s.
Canary v Vierra ( Folder public pvt )
SUM 100 (1 page) view
CM 010 - Cover Sheet (2 pages) view
Complaint (25 pages) view
--------
CIV 100 - Entry of Default view view
CIV 100 - Request for Default Judgement view
Declaration in Support of Default Judgement view
MC 030 - Financial Summary / Interest view
MC 030 - Exhibits view
JUD 100 Judgement (for consideration) view
Complaint Exhibits -
Group A - Filed with Req for Default Judgement.
A0) Damages Summary ( 2 pgs) view [ 74,293 // 57,950 ]
A1) HI 1 - 2nd Floor Attic Racoon Invasion ( 16 pgs) view {7950+2485 // 8500+1850 ]
A2) HI 2- Gas Furnace - Explosion Hazard (12 pgs) view [ 10,000 // 10,000 ]
A3) HI 3 - Gas Water Heater - Explosion Hazzard (13 pgs) view [ 3,000 // 2,000 ]
A4) HI 4 - Crawl Space Omissions (19 pgs) view
HI 4a- Crawl Space - Structural Defects [ 4,358 // 4,600 ]
HI-4b Crawl Space - Insulation Defects [ 5,000 // 2,000 ]
A5) HI 5 - Concrete Slab Seizing (9 pgs) view [ 3,500 // 3,500 ]
A6) HI 6 - North Yard Grade- East French Drain (18 pgs) view [ 10,000 // 6,500 ]
A7) HI 7 - No Hot Water (12 pgs) view [ 25,000 // 17,000 ]
A8) HI 8 - Other Plumbing deceit (5 pgs) view [ 0 // 0 ]
A9) HI 9 - Moss on Roof (10 pgs) view [ 3,000 // 2,000 ]
A10 ) Quote Packet (as stand alone packet) view
Group B - Filed with Req for Default Judgement.
B1) Jiminez v Capero view
B2) Jue v Smiser Visual view
B3) 8 Tiers of Fraud view
B4) Visuals - Bayview 14 view
Group C - Filed after Req for Default Judgement
C1) Pro Se Requirement Dialogue (3 pages) view
C2) Industry Wide Frauds - Part 1 (8 pages) view
C3) Industry Wide Frauds - Part 2 (18 pages) view
** -these will be filed with request for default judgement. I had gotten quotes for the GC , Painter and Termite inceptor frauds , but not for these guys at time of complaint filing.
Status
3/22/2024 - Filed
4/6/2024 - Served
5/10/2024 - Notice of Default filed (348k+)
5/20/2024 - Request for Default Judgment filed
5/22/2024 - Notice of Prove Up hearing
7/23/2024 - 9am / 14 / Panetta
CONTRACTOR FRAUD (Case 24CV001179) - - Canary et al v Chatters et al
Seeking $131,200 in Compensatory Damages and $509,500 in Punitive Damages
Fraud 14 counts
John Chatters, General Contract and his painting Sub Contractor, David Woodbury accepted $55,000 to create and/or conceal $120,000 in defects.
Chatters "buried structural defects., mold, cat urine and more. Woodbury concealed material beyond useful life, urine, water damage while over spraying on roofs and closets without telling the seller of the defects he had created. They failed to pull permits to keep their identities and work private.
John Chatters has been a General Contractor since the 1980s. David Woodbury has been a Painting Contractor since the early 2000's.
Canary v Chatters et al ( Folder public pvt )
Summons (1 page) view
Cover Sheet (2 pages) view
Complaint (28 pages) view
Complaint Exhibits
Group A - GC - John Chatters (not submitted with complaint)
A0) Work Summary (3 page) view
A1) GC 1 - Concealed Rotten Joists ( 8 pages ) view
A2) GC 2 - $40k/$55k work w/o permits ( 9 pages ) view
A3) GC 3 - Concealed Mold ( 10 pages ) view
A4) GC 4 - Concealed 2nd flr attic ( 12 pages ) view
A5) GC 5 - Concealed bath floor defects ( 12 pages ) view
A6) GC 6 - Concealed cat urine ( 8 pages ) view
A7) GC 7 - Work Quoted but not Done (11 pages ) view
Group B - Painter - David Woodbury (submitted with request for default judgment)
B0) Damages Summary (3 page) view
B1) Painter 1 - Fascia ( 8 pages ) view
B2) Painter 2 - Exterior Siding - Int. Paint ( 9 pages ) view
B3) Painter 3 - Exterior Siding - Beyond Life ( 10 pages ) view
B4) Painter 4 - Rodent Urine in Ceiling ( 12 pages ) view
B5) Painter 5 - Garage Paint Job ( 12 pages ) view
B6) Painter 6 - Paint Overspray ( 8 pages ) view
B7) Painter 7 - Pool House (11 pages ) view
B8) Insurance Bond Co - part 1 ( 16 pages ) view
B9) Quotes for Damages - Contractor 1 ( 8 pages ) view
B10) Quotes for Damages - Contractor 2 ( 8 pages ) view
Group C - Scheme Details (submitted with request for default judgment)
C1) Jiminez v Capero ( 2 pages) view
C2) Jue v Smiser Visual ( 1 page) view
C3) 8 Tiers of Fraud (2 pages) view
C4) Visuals - Bayview 14 (10 pages) view
Not included...
C5) Clauses 14A, 14F, 11 and 12 - Intro to CAR Fraud ( 11 pages ) view
many others...
Status
3/22/2024 - Filed
4/2/2024 - Served
7/23/2024 - 9am / 15 / Willis
BUYERS AGENT FRAUD (Case 24CV001705) - - Canary et al v Palacios et al
Seeking $250,000 in Compensatory Damages, $1,250,000 in Punitive Damages and Non-Economic Damages (NOTE: Compensatory and Punitive overlap with claims against others and will only be collected 1x)
Fraud 7 counts / Interference with Commercial Matters / Personal Injury
Defendants Pamela Palacios and Peter Whyte were Buyers Agents for the Plaintiffs.
Palacios, under the guidance and control of her fellow Coldwell Banker Agent, Whyte, played the key "insider" role required for the Seller's Agent and Seller to execute a $250,000 fix up and disclosure fraud scheme. The scheme attempted by the Seller's Agent was extremely bold, because to be successful, it relied on Buyers Agents unknown to him at time of scheme initiation. Insincere Buyers Agents were and are the linchpin in the scheme. Without them the scheme can not be executed. Whyte and Palacios stepped in and filled that role when the opportunity presented itself.
Whyte has been an Agent since 1978. In the early 2000's he setup the Coldwell Banker Agent Training program in Beverly Hills. In 2018 he relocated to Monterey Bay to share his "skills" with the locals as a "mentor" and "transaction coordinator". In 2021, Whyte gained Palacios as a mentee, and guided her into and through a fraudulent scheme with consequences that both should remember for one reason or another, for many years to come.
Canary v Palacios et al ( Folder public pvt )
Summons (1 page) view
Cover Sheet (2 pages) view
Complaint (69 pages) view
Complaint Exhibits
A1) Fiduciary Agreement (2 pages) view
A2) Visual - As Is Sales (2 page) view
A3) Visual - Jue v Smiser - Representation Stmt Period Diagram (1 page) view
A4) Visual - Supposed to v Actual - As Is Sale (2 pages) view
A5) Visuals - Bayview 14 (12 pages) view
A6) RPA Clauses 14A and 14F - Fraudulent ( 6 pages) view
A7 ) Case Precedents - As Is Sales (11 pages) view
A8) Case Precedents - Broker/ Agent fraud (9 pages) view
A9 ) CA 1102 vs RPA clauses (12 pages) view
A10) Incomplete SPQ, Sellers AVID , TDS (4 pages) view
A11) 2011/2019 presentations to CA BAR - Jue v Smiser ( 5 pages) view
A12) 8 Tiers of Fraud ( 2 pages) view
A13) Damages ( 8 pages ) view
4/25/2024 - complaint filed...
5/3/2024 - Whyte was served
xxxx - Palacious pending
8/27/2024 - 9am / 14 / Panetta
SELLER FRAUD (Case 24CV001914) - - Canary et al v Forstein
Seeking $250,000 in Compensatory Damages, $1,250,000 in Punitive Damages and other Economic and Non-Economic Damages (NOTE: Compensatory and Punitive overlap with claims against others and will only be collected 1x)
Fraud 50+ counts / Personal Injury
Defendant, Micah Forstein was a Seller of Residential Property in Monterey County CA. Forstein and his Seller's Agent, Kent Weinstein engaged in a fix up and disclosure fraud scheme.. They attempted to take advantage of long standing fraud in state wide contracts and a network of Attorneys willing to protect those who attempted fraud.
Canary v Forstein ( Folder public pvt )
Summons (1 page) view
Cover Sheet (2 pages) view
Complaint (56 pages) view
Complaint Exhibits
Group A - Submitted with Complaint
A1.1 ) Causes of Action - Fraud- 50+ counts view
A1.2 ) Scope of Duty / Selection of Vendors - KW Disclosure Doc (1 page) view
A2) Disclosure Info Advisory - CAR Disclosure doc (DIA) (3 pages) view
A3) Seller Advisory regarding TDS - Keller Williams (2 pages) view
A4) Incomplete SPQ , Sellers AVID , TDS (4 pages) view
A5 ) Case Precedents - As Is Sales (11 pages) view
A6) Visuals - Bayview 14 (12 pages) view
A7) RPA Clauses 14A and 14F - Fraudulent ( 6 pages) view
A8 ) CA 1102 vs RPA clauses (12 pages) view
A9) Visual - As Is Sales (2 page) view
A10) Visual - Jue v Smiser - Representation Stmt Period Diagram (1 page) view
A11) Visual - Supposed to v Actual - As Is Sale (2 pages) view
A12) 2011/2019 presentations to CA BAR - Jue v Smiser (5 pages) view
A13) 8 Tiers of Fraud (2 pages) view
Group B - (to be submitted with request for default judgment)
C1) Jiminez v Capero ( 2 pages) view
C2) Flow Chart - RICO - Cock Fight (1 pages) view
C3) Flow Chart - RICO - BrokerRiskMgt / Coldwell Banker / Apollo details view