Chase Simionidis Depo PDF

1
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

____________________________________________________________
3
DUNCAN K. ROBERTSON, )
4 ) Appeal No. 16-35572
Plaintiff, ) No. 2:12-CV-02017-MJP
5 )
)
6 vs. ) Seattle, WA
)
7 GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, et al., )
) Evidentiary Hearing, Day 1
8 Defendant. ) June 10, 2016
9 ____________________________________________________________
10 VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE MARSHA J. PECHMAN
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
____________________________________________________________
12
13 APPEARANCES:
14 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: SCOTT E. STAFNE

Stafne Trumbull LLC
15 239 North Olympic Avenue
Arlington, WA 98223
16 scott@stafnelawfirm.com
17 FOR DEFENDANT GMAC: WILLIAM G. FIG

Sussman Shank
18 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 1400
Portland, OR 97205-1111
19 billf@sussmanshank.com
20 FOR DEFENDANT CHASE: FRED B. BURNSIDE

Davis Wright Tremaine
21 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101-3045
22 fredburnside@dwt.com
23
24
25
2
1 FOR DEFENDANT LSI: PETER ANTHONY TALEVICH

K&L Gates LLP
2 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98104
3 peter.talevich@KLgates.com
4 KARI L. VANDER STOEP

K&L Gates LLP
5 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98104
6 kari.vanderstoep@klgates.com
9 Andrea Ramirez, CRR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
10 United States District Court
Western District of Washington
11 700 Stewart Street, Suite 17205
Seattle, WA 98101
12 andrea_ramirez@wawd.uscourts.gov
13 Reported by stenotype, transcribed by computer
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1 I N D E X
2 Page No.
3 Witness: JOHN SIMIONIDIS

Direct Examination by Mr. Burnside 8
4 Cross Examination by Mr. Stafne 13
5 Witness: MICHAEL THOMPSON

Direct Examination by Mr. Fig 20
6
Witness: ALBERT G. VERKUYLEN
7 Direct Examination by Mr. Talevich 25
Cross Examination by Mr. Stafne 46
8
Witness: CHERYLL PENN
9 Direct Examination by Mr. Stafne 74
Cross Examination by Mr. Talevich 87
10 Redirect Examination by Mr. Stafne 90
11
12
13 E X H I B I T S
14 Exhibit 200 24
15 Exhibit 201 24
16 Exhibit 202 24
17 Exhibit 203 24
18 Exhibit 204 24
19 Exhibit 205 24
20 Exhibit 206 24
21 Exhibit 207 24
22 Exhibit 208 24
23 Exhibit 209 24
24 Exhibit 210 24
25 Exhibit 211 24
4
1 E X H I B I T S (cont'd)
2 Page No.
3 Exhibit 212 24
4 Exhibit 213 24
5 Exhibit 214 24
6 Exhibit 215 24
7 Exhibit 216 24
8 Exhibit 217 24
9 Exhibit 218 24
10 Exhibit 219 24
11 Exhibit 220 24
12 Exhibit 302 14
13 Exhibit 303 14
14 Exhibit 304 14
15 Exhibit 309 14
16 Exhibit 501 11
17 Exhibit 502 12
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
Robertson vs. GMAC, 6/10/16
1 THE COURT: This is the matter of Duncan
2 Robertson vs. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, Cause Number C12-2017.
3 Counsel, please make your appearances.
4 MR. STAFNE: Your Honor, my name is Scott Stafne, and
5 I represent Mr. Duncan Robertson.
6 THE COURT: Good morning.
7 MR. STAFNE: Good morning.
8 MR. FIG: William Fig, Your Honor, for Bank of New
9 York Mellon Trust Company.
10 MR. BURNSIDE: Fred Burnside, Your Honor, for
11 JPMorgan Chase.
12 MS. VANDER STOEP: Kari Vander Stoep, with LSI Title
13 Agency, Inc.
14 MR. TALEVICH: Good morning, Your Honor. Pete
15 Talevich, K&L Gates. I'm here with our witness, Al Verkuylen,
16 and our trial paralegal, Dennis Tessier.
17 THE COURT: Good morning.
18 Counsel, I've had an opportunity to review your materials
19 that you submitted, the responses, and the replies. I've also
20 had an opportunity to review your deposition designations of
21 Michael Scott Thompson, the deposition designations of Albert
22 Verkuylen -- I don't know if that's -- Verkuylen; is that
23 correct?
24 THE WITNESS: Verkuylen.
25 THE COURT: Verkuylen, excuse me. And I also had an

6
1 opportunity to review the designations of Gregory Plizga.
2 MR. ROBERTSON: Plizga, is it?
3 THE COURT: Plizga. The witnesses' names are almost
4 as confusing as the companies themselves' names.
5 All right. So I've had an opportunity to review that.
6 Showing removability is a burden that's on the defendants,
7 so they get to make the presentations first.
8 And I know, Mr. Burnside, in your materials, you were
9 requesting that you be excused and not have to be here.
10 Obviously, you're here. I decided that was not appropriate.
11 MR. BURNSIDE: Hope springs eternal, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: All right. But one of the things that we
13 may want to do is take the companies in order. And if you're
14 done making your presentations, you may make a motion again to
15 be excused, if you're finished.
16 MR. BURNSIDE: Thank you.
17 THE COURT: Okay. All right.
18 MR. STAFNE: Your Honor?
19 THE COURT: Yes.
20 MR. STAFNE: Do I -- am I to conclude from that that
21 you have decided that Mr. Burnside will not be a witness in
22 Robertson's case in chief?
23 THE COURT: Well, I'm going to give you an
24 opportunity to tell me why.
25 MR. STAFNE: Okay. Sure.

7
1 THE COURT: But at this point -- what I'm saying is,
2 when we're done with his company. I don't know if we're going
3 to do one company at a time, or we're going to do -- I don't
4 know what the plan is.
5 MR. STAFNE: Sure.
6 THE COURT: But what I'm telling Mr. Burnside, he
7 made a request. It may make sense to take his case first, and
8 he can then ask me again. Obviously, I said no the last time,
9 and he's here.
10 MR. FIG: Your Honor, Bill Fig.
11 We do have a plan. Mr. Burnside will be our primary
12 speaking person. But it's going to go Chase, for the
13 defendants, then Bank of New York Mellon, and then LSI will
14 end, in terms of the defendants -- in terms of putting on
15 evidence and witnesses, because we thought that would be the
16 most expeditious.
17 THE COURT: I believe that Ms. Miller told you that
18 we're going to run today without a break, that I have a
19 commitment. I need to be standing in the parking lot with
20 three other judges at 11:35; okay?
21 All right. Mr. Burnside?
22 MR. BURNSIDE: Good morning, Your Honor.
23 Before getting -- calling Chase's first witness, I know
24 Mr. Stafne has raised sort of the scope of testimony, and he's
25 going to address that later with Your Honor.

8
SIMIONIDIS - Direct (by Mr. Burnside)
1 Before that, before we get to the witness testimony, I
2 think that one of the issues that we had briefed, and Your
3 Honor had asked for briefing on, was the standard of proof for
4 citizenship. And we've submitted briefing showing, under the
5 Wachovia and Rouse cases, that it's where your articles of
6 association designate the main office at. And we think that is
7 the task that's unrefuted, so that's the evidence that we
8 intend to put forward.
9 With that, Chase calls John Simionidis.
10 THE COURT: Good morning. Please raise your right
11 hand to be sworn.
12 JOHN SIMIONIDIS, having been duly sworn, was examined and
13 testified as follows:
14 THE COURT: Please have a seat.
15 DIRECT EXAMINATION
16 BY MR. BURNSIDE
17 Q Good morning, Mr. Simionidis.
18 Could you please state and spell your name for the record?
19 A Yes. My name is John Simionidis, S-I-M-I-O-N-I-D-I-S.
20 Q And Mr. Simionidis, where do you work?
21 A I work with JPMorgan Chase, N.A.
22 Q And what's your job title?
23 A My job title is mortgage banking research officer.
24 Q And could you describe for the Court the scope of those
25 duties?
9
1 A Yes. I review the loans that are in default, review loans
2 that are in litigation, attend mediations, occasionally attend
3 trials, and occasionally do depositions.
4 Q As part of your job duties, are you required to have
5 access to Chase's corporate records?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And do you have access?
8 A I do.
9 Q And does that include internal corporate documents?
10 A Yes.
11 MR. BURNSIDE: I believe -- and I don't know if the
12 exhibits are there for him -- but Exhibit 101 has been
13 designated, and I was going to show it to the witness, if I
14 could.
15 THE WITNESS: I don't think this is the one.
16 MR. BURNSIDE: Wrong folder?
17 THE WITNESS: It says "LSI" here.
18 MR. ROBERTSON: That's our 101. Forgive us.
19 THE CLERK: Do we want to mark these maybe a
20 different exhibit number, 401?
21 MR. BURNSIDE: Yeah, we can make it 501, if that will
22 provide a clean list.
23 THE CLERK: Okay.
24 MR. BURNSIDE: I think that we had just designated
25 that in our exhibit list as 101.

10
1 THE CLERK: So we have 501 and 502 now.
2 MR. BURNSIDE: Correct.
3 THE WITNESS: Okay.
4 BY MR. BURNSIDE
5 Q Do you recognize Exhibit 501?
6 A I do.
7 Q What is Exhibit 501?
8 A This is the articles of association for JPMorgan Chase
9 Bank.
10 Q And do you see the cover page there?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And do you recognize these as certified articles of
13 association from the OCC?
14 A I do.
15 Q And I direct your attention to the second page of
16 Exhibit 501.
17 These indicate that they are as amended on June 30, 2008;
18 is that right?
19 A That's correct.
20 Q And do you see a number of enumerated paragraphs on that
21 first page?
22 A I do.
23 Q And could you read for the Court the second enumerated
24 paragraph for us?
25 A Yes. It's, "The main office of the association shall be

11
1 in the city of Columbus, county of Delaware, state of Ohio.
2 The general business of the association shall be conducted at
3 its main office and its branches."
4 Q And you've seen this document before; correct?
5 A I have.
6 Q And where did you find this document?
7 A We actually have an intranet, which is the Chase website,
8 that actually I can pull up Chase business records and
9 corporate documents.
10 Q And do you recognize this as a Chase business record?
11 A I do.
12 MR. BURNSIDE: We would move for admission of
13 Exhibit 501, Your Honor.
14 MR. STAFNE: No objection.
15 THE COURT: 501 will be admitted.
16 (Exhibit 501 was admitted)
17 BY MR. BURNSIDE
18 Q I'd like to direct your attention to what has been marked,
19 I guess, as Exhibit 502.
20 Before I get there, let me ask, do you know whether the
21 Chase articles of association have been amended since 2008?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 502, could
24 you describe what that document is?
25 A This is the amended articles of association for JPMorgan

12
1 Chase Bank. And it was amended on April 19, 2016.
2 Q Okay. And have you seen this document before?
3 A I have.
4 Q And where did you see this document?
5 A As part of our business records.
6 Q And could you read for us, again, the second enumerated
7 paragraph on this document?
8 A Yes. It's, "The main office of the association shall be
9 in the city of Columbus, county of Delaware, state of Ohio.
10 The general business of the association shall be conducted at
11 its main office and its branches."
12 MR. BURNSIDE: We would move for admission of
13 Exhibit 502, Your Honor.
14 MR. STAFNE: No objection, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: 502 will be admitted.
17 BY MR. BURNSIDE
18 Q Based on your review of Exhibits 501 and 502, is it your
19 understanding that Ohio is the office -- I'm sorry -- the main
20 office for JPMorgan Chase Bank?
21 A Yes.
22 Q The articles of association is listed as Ohio?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Do you have any reason to believe that has changed at all
25 between 2008 and the present?

13
1 A No.
2 MR. BURNSIDE: No further questions, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: Mr. Stafne?
4 CROSS EXAMINATION
5 BY MR. STAFNE
6 Q Were you working for Chase in 2006, when there was the
7 asset swap between JPMorgan Chase and Bank of New York, a
8 state-chartered bank?
9 A I actually joined JPMorgan Chase Bank in February of 2007.
10 Q So you have no knowledge about that swap?
11 MR. BURNSIDE: I'm going to object as beyond the
12 scope of my questioning and beyond the issues here in the Ninth
13 Circuit as to citizenship, as stated in the main articles of
14 association.
15 THE COURT: Sustained.
16 MR. STAFNE: All right. I have no further questions.
17 MR. BURNSIDE: At this point, we would move to have
18 the witness excused and released so he can catch an earlier
19 flight, if that's possible.
20 THE COURT: Is there any other questioning that
21 anyone else wishes to make?
22 Thank you, sir. You're excused.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Mr. Burnside, any other witnesses?
25 MR. BURNSIDE: No other witnesses for Chase, Your

14
1 Honor. We're moving to Bank of New York.
2 MR. FIG: Your Honor, for Bank of New York Mellon
3 Trust Company, N.A., plaintiff's counsel and I have stipulated
4 to the admission of some exhibits. And we filed that -- I
5 filed that stipulation with the Court earlier this week. We've
6 agreed to the admission of Exhibit 302, 303, 304, and 309, of
7 Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company's exhibits.
8 THE COURT: Mr. Stafne, is that correct?
9 MR. STAFNE: That is correct.
10 THE COURT: Okay. Exhibits 302, 303, and 309 will be
11 admitted.
12 (Exhibits 302, 303, 309 were admitted)
13 MR. FIG: Thank you, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
15 THE CLERK: I believe you said 304, as well; didn't
16 you?
17 MR. FIG: Yes, 302, 303, 304, and 309.
18 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I missed 304. 304 will be
19 admitted, as well.
22 My witness, Your Honor, is via telephone. I've provided
23 your clerk with that information, Mr. Michael Thompson.
24 MR. STAFNE: Your Honor, before we begin that, may I
25 state what I believe the -- we intend to prove here, and then

15
1 you can rule that part of it -- if you think it is
2 inappropriate, then we'll have that on the record. But I would
3 like to make an offer of proof with regard to what we intend to
4 prove.
5 THE COURT: As to Bank of New York Mellon?
6 MR. STAFNE: Yes.
7 THE COURT: Does it need to happen before this
8 witness is put on?
9 MR. STAFNE: I think it may, because I anticipate
10 some objections if we -- if I do not.
11 THE COURT: All right. Go ahead, Mr. Stafne. What
12 would you like to have me know?
13 MR. STAFNE: As you know, Your Honor, the pleadings
14 establish Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National
15 Association, erroneously states that, as part of its removal
16 proceedings, that its principal place of business was in
17 Florida. Robertson will present evidence at this hearing
18 tending to prove Robertson's complaint sued Bank of New York
19 Trust Company.
20 Two, attorneys representing JPMorgan Chase Company filed
21 pleadings purporting to change the Bank of New York Trust
22 Company to the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company. They did
23 it in the notice of appearance with a footnote indicating that
24 Mr. Robertson had sued the wrong company. This allegation was
25 based on the assertion that there was an asset swap between

16
1 Chase's trustee business with Bank of New York. This is in the
2 pleadings in this case and in the pleadings before the Ninth
3 Circuit.
4 The evidence will actually show that the asset swap was
5 between Chase and Bank of New York, and not Bank of New York
6 Trust Company. Further, the evidence will show that at the
7 time of the asset swap, Bank of New York was a separate entity
8 from Bank of New York Trust Company.
9 THE COURT: Mr. Stafne, when is it that you believe
10 this change happened? You haven't given me a date.
11 MR. STAFNE: It happened in 2006, and it's in the
12 record, and Chase refers to the Comptroller of the Currency's
13 approval of it. And I think it's beyond dispute that what we
14 are dealing with is a swap between Chase and Bank of New York,
15 and that they substituted in the name Bank of New York Mellon
16 Trust Company, saying that's who Mr. Robertson was suing, when
17 that was not true. So that would all go to the jurisdictional
18 statements, and we would claim that that is a manipulation of
19 this Court's jurisdiction.
20 THE COURT: Mr. Stafne, when the Ninth Circuit sent
21 this to me for additional fact-finding, what was the name of
22 the company that they suggested that I do the fact-finding on?
23 MR. STAFNE: It is -- well, Bank of New York. If you
24 read their footnote, they unfortunately -- and courts do this
25 all around the country -- they tend to treat all these entities
17
1 as BNY. So if you look at the footnote, it says that there
2 seems to be no problem with BNY's principal place of business.
3 And so they didn't give you very good guidance. And
4 unfortunately, they got wrong the fact that Mr. Robertson
5 objected strenuously to the Miami address being a principal
6 place of business.
7 THE COURT: BNY, what is the name on the -- what is
8 the name on the case in the Ninth Circuit?
9 MR. STAFNE: I believe it is Bank of New York Mellon
10 Trust Company, N.A., which apparently, as we now know from
11 their records, is not the correct name. The correct name is
12 with it spelled out. Mr. Robertson actually sued Bank of New
13 York Trust. Mr. Thompson has testified that Bank of New York
14 Mellon Trust Company, National Association, did not exist in
15 2006.
16 MR. FIG: Your Honor, if I may?
17 Two points. One is, on Page 3 of the Ninth Circuit's
18 memorandum, it identifies the entity at issue on that appeal,
19 and that the Court is addressing, as the Bank of New York
20 Mellon Trust Company, N.A. And then in parens they called it
21 "BNY." So I think that's issue number one.
22 Issue number two is, is that Mr. Robertson actually sued
23 the Bank of York Trust Company, N.A., which then there's
24 evidence in the record, and Mr. Thompson's deposition
25 testifies, that they added the name "Mellon." And in fact,

18
1 that's what's in the articles of association.
2 Thirdly, when we were here to set the parameters for this
3 hearing, I believe you had me stand up and confirm that the
4 Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., was the party that
5 was going to respond in this evidentiary hearing, and you asked
6 us all to agree on that. And counsel all said, "Yeah, that's
7 who it's going to be."
8 So those are the three issues I'd like to raise.
9 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Stafne, I only have authority
10 to sit by what the Ninth Circuit gives me. What they've
11 outlined here is, they have identified the entity that I am
12 supposed to determine what their citizenship is at the time of
13 removal or at the time that the judgment was entered. That's
14 all I'm here to do today. And so I'm not going to entertain
15 arguments about what happened in 2006 with another entity. If
16 it's -- if it's been gotten wrong, it's been gotten wrong at
17 the Ninth Circuit. If it's been gotten wrong, that's something
18 that they're going to have to sort out. I don't have the
19 authority to do that.
20 MR. STAFNE: I hear you, Your Honor.
21 Will I be -- other than what I've just stated as a way of
22 an offer of proof, I take it, then, you would not want any
23 offers of proof made during our testimony?
24 THE COURT: Not unless it goes to the issues that
25 I've identified here.

19
1 MR. STAFNE: Which is solely whether or not the
2 articles of association identify Bank of New York Mellon Trust
3 Company, National Association, as being a California
4 corporation?
5 MR. FIG: I'm sorry --
6 MR. STAFNE: California for citizen -- for purposes
7 of diversity.
8 MR. FIG: The main offices are in California. I
9 believe that's correct, what's before the Court.
10 THE COURT: Well, the answer to are we going to
11 adjudicate anything else, the answer is, no, we're not.
12 MR. STAFNE: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
13 MR. THOMPSON: This is Scott.
14 MR. FIG: Hello, Scott. You're on the speakerphone
15 with the Court. The judge will swear you in.
16 MR. THOMPSON: Okay.
17 THE COURT: Sir, this is Judge Marsha Pechman.
18 Can you tell me your first name and last name, please?
19 MR. THOMPSON: Michael Thompson.
20 THE COURT: Mr. Thompson, can you please raise your
21 right hand to be sworn?
22 MICHAEL THOMPSON, having been duly sworn, was examined and
24 THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel.

20
THOMPSON - Direct (by Mr. Fig)
2 BY MR. FIG
3 Q Mr. Thompson, can you say your first name and spell it for
4 the court reporter, please?
5 A Michael Scott Thompson, M-I-C-H-A-E-L, S-C-O-T-T,
6 T-H-O-M-P-S-O-N.
7 Q And Mr. Thompson, where do you work?
8 A The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company.
9 Q And what is your position at the Bank of New York Mellon
10 Trust Company?
11 A I am a vice president and team leader of the
12 mortgage-backed securities team, here in Pittsburgh.
13 Q And how long have you been employed with the Bank of New
14 York Mellon Trust Company?
15 A With the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, since
16 2008.
17 Q And in your position, do you have access to Bank of New
18 York Mellon Trust Company's corporate records?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And I've sent you some exhibits.
21 Can you turn to what is marked as Exhibit 302, please?
22 A Okay.
23 Q Can you tell me what Exhibit 302 is?
24 A Exhibit 302 is a true and exact copy of the articles of
25 association for the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company,

21
THOMPSON - Direct (by Mr. Fig)
1 N.A., that are kept with the corporate secretarial services
2 group here in Pittsburgh in the normal course of business.
3 Q And does the articles of association that are Exhibit 302,
4 do they identify a main office for the Bank of New York Mellon
5 Trust Company, N.A.?
6 A Yes, they do.
7 Q And what is -- where is that identified within this
8 document?
9 A It is in clause second, on the first page of the articles
10 of association.
11 Q And what does that clause read?
12 A It states that the main office of the association shall be
13 located in Los Angeles, county of Los Angeles, and state of
14 California.
15 Q Okay. And have these articles been in effect, that are
16 Exhibit 302, since July 1 of 2008?
17 A Yes, they have.
18 MR. FIG: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Mr. Stafne, any questions?
20 MR. STAFNE: Yes.
21 Your Honor, I had several -- I would just like to ask
22 to -- with regard to making my offer of proof.
23 BY MR. STAFNE
24 Q Who did you work for before you worked for Bank of New
25 York Mellon Trust Company, National Association, in 2008?

22
1 A The Bank of New York Trust Company, National Association.
2 Q And was that a different company?
3 A It was a -- the name of the company prior to a merger.
4 Q Okay. And was that a state-chartered bank?
5 MR. FIG: Your Honor, I'll object.
6 MR. STAFNE: I'll withdraw the question.
7 BY MR. STAFNE
8 Q Let me ask you this.
9 Do you recall testifying at your deposition that Bank of
10 New York Mellon National Trust Company -- excuse me -- Bank of
11 New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association, did not
12 exist until 2008?
13 A Yes.
14 MR. STAFNE: No further questions, Your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Anything further?
16 MR. FIG: Nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you.
17 MR. BURNSIDE: Nothing from us, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: Any other questions?
19 MR. TALEVICH: No. Thank you, Your Honor.
20 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir. You may be
21 excused.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: Mr. Fig, any further witnesses?
24 MR. FIG: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
25 THE COURT: Okay.

23
1 MR. FIG: I don't know if it's appropriate in this
2 type of hearing to -- at this point to move for directed
3 verdict on behalf of Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company,
4 N.A., regarding its -- establishing its citizenship and its
5 diversity, or I can wait until LSI is complete. This is a
6 little bit of an unusual situation.
7 THE COURT: I don't know if Mr. Stafne has any
8 further witnesses he wishes to put on.
9 MR. STAFNE: I do.
10 THE COURT: For the Bank of New York Mellon?
11 MR. STAFNE: Yes.
12 THE COURT: Then I hear your motion, and I decline to
13 rule on it at this time.
15 THE COURT: Okay.
16 MR. TALEVICH: Good morning, Your Honor. Pete
17 Talevich, from LSI.
18 Before we begin our presentation, at Docket 277 there is a
19 stipulation between Mr. Stafne and I, to make this easy.
20 Mr. Stafne has stipulated to the admissibility of LSI
21 Exhibits 200 through 220, which are all of them. And so we
22 would move to admit Exhibits 200 through 220 for the purposes
23 of this hearing.
24 THE COURT: Mr. Stafne, is that correct?
25 MR. STAFNE: That is correct.

24
1 THE COURT: Exhibits 200 through 220 will be
2 admitted.
3 (Exhibits 200 through 220 were admitted)
4 MR. TALEVICH: Thank you, Your Honor.
5 Your Honor, because you're familiar with the briefs I'll
6 forego any lengthy opening statement. But I did want to,
7 before we begin, direct you to certain portions of the
8 deposition of Greg Plizga that relate to the citizenship of LSI
9 Title Agency, Inc.
10 In our view, Mr. Plizga's testimony itself establishes
11 that we met our burden of showing that LSI is not a citizen of
12 the same state as plaintiff, and is not a foreign defendant.
13 At Page 89, he states that during 2012, LSI Title Agency, Inc.,
14 only had operations in California, Pennsylvania, and Texas, and
15 had non-employee officers working in Florida. And he stated
16 the main officers, decision-makers, were Ron Frazier, the
17 president, and Mr. Verkuylen, in California. That's at
18 Pages 95 through 96.
19 Mr. Plizga's deposition also addresses the Office of
20 Insurance Commission issue. And so I guess after my
21 presentation, if the Court has any questions about that, I'd be
22 happy to answer them, but it has no bearing on LSI's
23 citizenship.
24 We'd like to call Al Verkuylen.
25 THE COURT: Please raise your right hand to be sworn.

25
VERKUYLEN - Direct (by Mr. Talevich)
1 ALBERT G. VERKUYLEN, having been duly sworn, was examined
2 and testified as follows:
3 THE COURT: Please have a seat, sir.
5 BY MR. TALEVICH
6 Q Good morning, sir.
7 A Good morning.
8 Q Can you please state your name for the record?
9 A Albert G. Verkuylen.
10 Q And I think the court reporter would appreciate it if you
11 could spell your last name.
12 A "V," as in Victor, E-R-K-U-Y-L-E-N.
13 Q And what's your occupation?
14 A I am executive VP for title and escrow strategy for
15 ServiceLink.
16 Q And what type of work do you perform in your current role?
17 A I work within the company, primarily in the originations
18 title group, where I communicate with product development and
19 our IT folks, people in sales, and help to develop new
20 opportunities within the company.
21 Q And where do you perform your work from?
22 A I work from Irvine, California.
23 Q And just so we can be clear with the Court, what's the
24 relationship between ServiceLink Title Agency and LSI Title
25 Agency?
26
1 A ServiceLink Title Agency is the new name for what was LSI
3 Q And prior to your employment now, can you tell me your
4 previous employment history?
5 A Prior to ServiceLink, I worked for LSI Title Agency, Inc.
6 Q And what positions do you hold -- strike that, please.
7 What titles did you hold with LSI Title Agency, Inc.?
8 A I was SVP, chief strategy officer, and I also was a COO
9 for the title originations group.
10 THE COURT: I know what a COO is, but I'm -- SVP, I'm
11 assuming, is senior vice president?
12 THE WITNESS: Correct.
13 THE COURT: Thank you.
14 BY MR. TALEVICH
15 Q And were your duties different with LSI Title Agency,
16 Inc., than they are now with ServiceLink Title Agency, Inc.?
17 A The only difference is that today I don't run all the
18 operations.
19 Q So you did run all of the operations for LSI Title Agency,
20 Inc.?
21 A Yes, for the originations group.
22 Q So it's safe to say that in 2012, for the period of 2012,
23 you're familiar with the operations of LSI Title Agency, Inc.;
24 is that correct?
25 A Yes, I am.
27
1 Q All these questions will relate to the 2012 period. I'll
2 try to preface it with that, but that's what I'm getting at
3 here.
4 In 2012, about how many people, total, performed work for
5 LSI Title Agency, Inc.?
6 A Anywhere between 500 and 900.
7 Q And in what states was this work performed?
8 A In Pennsylvania, in Texas, and in California.
9 Q Is there a reason that LSI Title Agency, Inc. had
10 employees located in three states?
11 A Yes. In -- with LSI Title, their primary office, or
12 headquarters, was in Pennsylvania. Prior to LSI Title, the --
13 we were known as Fidelity National Lender Solutions, and our
14 primary headquarters was in California. So when the two
15 companies merged, we had those two large centers; and then in
16 addition, we had a separate center in Texas. And that was the
17 original Fidelity Title Group, and it remained the primary
18 center in Texas after that merger.
19 Q When was that merger between LSI and Fidelity National
20 Lender Services?
21 A I don't recall.
22 Q Well before 2012?
23 A Oh, yes, sir.
24 Q And so you mentioned the three states, Pennsylvania,
25 California, and Texas.

28
1 Were there officers of LSI Title Agency, Inc., working in
2 each of these states in 2012?
3 A Yes.
4 Q In 2012, did LSI have any officers in any other states?
5 A Yes, in Florida and Jacksonville.
6 Q And in the period 2012, who were the key decision-makers
7 for LSI Title Agency, Inc.?
8 A Ron Frazier, who was the president; Greg Plizga, who was
9 chief legal counsel; Jim Dufficy, who was chief title officer;
10 and myself.
11 Q Let's start with Ron Frazier. What were his duties?
12 A He was president, and so he ran the entire organization,
13 LSI Title Agency, Inc.
14 Q Where did he work?
15 A He worked out of Irvine, California.
16 Q In 2012, where did you work?
17 A I worked in Irvine, California.
18 Q And what were your duties for LSI Title Agency, Inc., in
19 2012?
20 A I was running the originations title group and then also
21 continued to do some of the product development and IT
22 development, oversight.
23 Q What were Greg Plizga's duties?
24 A Greg was our general counsel for LSI Title, and he worked
25 out of Pittsburgh. And he would handle legal matters. He had

29
1 paralegals who worked with various insurance commissioners. He
2 did our contracts with lenders.
3 Q And you said Pittsburgh. Was it in the city --
4 A I'm sorry. Coraopolis.
5 Q Is that near --
6 A Pennsylvania. Yes, it's very near Pittsburgh.
7 Q And then the last name you mentioned was Jim Dufficy?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And what were his job duties for LSI Title Agency, Inc.?
10 A He was chief title officer, and his responsibilities were
11 with title underwriting and making decisions on title
12 underwriting matters, helping the company with any claims. And
13 he was also president of National Title of New York, our
14 primary title underwriter.
16 A He worked in Irvine, California.
17 MR. TALEVICH: Can the clerk please hand
18 Mr. Verkuylen Exhibit 203?
19 BY MR. TALEVICH
20 Q Do you recognize this document?
21 A Yes, I've seen it.
22 Q What's the date on the document?
23 A April 2, 2012.
24 Q And do you see the portion that says "annual meeting," in
25 bold and underlined?

30
1 A Yes.
2 Q Can you read the language underneath that?
3 A "Resolved that this meeting is designated as the annual
4 meeting of the board of directors of the company for the
5 calendar year 2012."
6 Q Do you see where it says "election of officers," also in
7 bold and underlined?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Can you read the sentence, starting with "resolved"?
10 A "Resolved that the company does hereby appoint the
11 individuals hereafter named to serve as officers of this
12 company in such capacities as are shown after their respective
13 names until the next annual meeting of the board of directors,
14 or until such time as their successors have been duly elected
15 and qualified."
16 Q Okay. And then you see a list of individual name and
17 title below that.
18 A Correct.
19 Q I'm going to go through this and ask you to identify each
20 officer, each name, each person's duties, and where each person
21 was located.
22 We've spoken about Ron Frazier; correct?
23 A Correct.
24 Q Todd Johnson?
25 A Todd Johnson was EVP, and worked in Jacksonville.

31
1 Q And what does "EVP" stand for?
2 A Executive vice president.
3 Q And what were his general job duties?
4 A Legal, general counsel.
5 Q Jennifer Alvarado?
6 A Jennifer Alvarado was a senior VP, and she was a
7 treasurer, and was located in Jacksonville.
8 Q We've spoken about James Dufficy; is that correct?
9 A Correct.
10 Q Robert M. Lee?
11 A Robert M. Lee was in sales, I believe. And he was a
12 senior vice president.
13 Q And where did he work?
14 A Jacksonville.
15 Q There's your name; right?
16 A Correct.
17 Q We've addressed you.
18 A Yes.
19 Q Chad A. Neel, N-E-E-L?
20 A Yes. Chad Neel was a senior vice president. And he
21 worked in the default group, and he was located in Irving,
22 Texas.
23 Q Kevin Leasure?
24 THE COURT: Let me make sure I've got this straight.
25 There is an Irvine, California, but this is Irvine, Texas?

32
1 THE WITNESS: Irving.
2 THE COURT: Irving, excuse me.
3 BY MR. TALEVICH
4 Q And where is Irving, Texas, located? Is that in the
5 Dallas area?
6 A It is in the Dallas area.
7 Q Kevin P. Leasure, L-E-A-S-U-R-E?
8 A Yes. Kevin, I recall as being in Jacksonville. And when
9 he was a senior VP, I don't recall exactly what his position
10 was.
11 Q Colleen Haley?
12 A Yes. Colleen Haley was vice president and corporate
13 secretary, and she was located in Jacksonville.
14 Q We've addressed Gregory J. Plizga; is that correct?
15 A Correct.
16 Q Gary J. Finnell?
17 A Gary J. Finnell was a vice president, and he was an
18 attorney in the legal department for the default organization.
19 Q And where did he work?
20 A I'm sorry. In Irvine, California.
21 Q Scott Batsch?
22 A Scott Batsch was vice president and worked in the tax
23 group, and he was located in Jacksonville, Florida.
24 Q Jill Cadwell?
25 A Jill Cadwell was a vice president of title and closing

33
1 operations. She worked directly for me, and she worked in
2 Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.
3 Q Can you describe kind of her job duties?
4 A Yes. She oversaw all the day-to-day originations, title
5 production, fulfillment, escrow, and all the -- those title
6 people in Coraopolis reported up to her, and she reported,
7 then, directly to me.
8 Q Laurie Leenhouts?
9 A Laurie Leenhouts had similar duties as Jill Cadwell, but
10 she had those in our operation in Grapevine, Texas, which is
11 near Dallas. And she was a vice president. And as I
12 indicated, she's located there in Texas.
13 Q Benjamin See?
14 A Yes. Benjamin See was assistant treasurer, vice
15 president, and he worked in Jacksonville.
16 Q And April L. Johnson?
17 A April Johnson is assistant corporate secretary, and she is
18 located in Jacksonville.
19 MR. TALEVICH: Could the clerk please hand
21 BY MR. TALEVICH
23 A Yes, I've seen it.
24 Q What's its date?
25 A April 2, 2012.
34
1 Q And then there's a portion that says "election of
2 directors."
3 Do you see that?
4 A Correct, I do.
5 Q Can you read the sentence beginning with "resolved"?
6 A "Resolved that the company does hereby appoint the
7 individuals hereinafter named to serve as directors of this
8 company until the next annual meeting of the sole shareholder,
9 or until such time as their successors have been duly elected
10 and qualified."
11 Q And what are those two names?
12 A Todd C. Johnson and Ron L. Frazier.
13 Q And we spoke about them when we were talking about
14 officers; is that correct?
15 A Correct.
16 Q Can you turn to the second page of this exhibit?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Do you see the portion where it says, "LSI Title Company,
19 sole shareholder"?
20 A I do.
21 Q What's the relationship between LSI Title Company and LSI
22 Title Agency, Inc.?
23 A LSI Title Company would be the parent company of LSI Title
24 Agency, Inc.
25 MR. TALEVICH: Can the clerk please hand

35
2 BY MR. TALEVICH
4 A Yes, I do.
5 Q Can you summarize this document for me?
6 A Jenny Alvarado left the company at or about June 22, and
7 she was named -- she was being replaced as an officer by
8 Benjamin See, who had become the vice president and treasurer,
9 and also added was Craig Zinda, who was a vice president in the
10 default -- in default corporate counsel. Benjamin See was in
11 Jacksonville, and Craig Zinda was in Texas.
12 Q What's the date on this document?
13 A It's dated June 22, 2012, signed by Todd Johnson and Ron
14 Frazier.
15 MR. TALEVICH: Can I get Exhibit 205, please?
16 BY MR. TALEVICH
18 A Yes, I do.
19 Q Do you see a date at the bottom of that document, above
20 the six?
21 A Yes, September 24, 2012.
22 Q And can you summarize this document?
23 A Yes. Tom Schilling was being named an officer and -- for
24 LSI Title Agency, Inc. He was also the CFO of the company and
25 had direct oversight over LSI Title Agency.

36
2 A He worked in Jacksonville, Florida.
3 Q Okay. So we just looked at 202, 203, 204, and 205.
4 Collectively, do those exhibits that we just reviewed
5 contain all the key decision-makers for LSI Title Agency, Inc.
6 in 2012?
7 A Yes, they did.
8 Q Can you think of anyone not listed on these documents who
9 was involved in the leadership of LSI Title Agency, Inc. in
10 2012?
11 A No, I cannot.
12 Q In 2012, did LSI Title Agency, Inc. have any offices in
13 Oregon?
14 A No.
15 Q In 2012, did LSI Title Agency, Inc. have any officers in
16 Oregon?
17 A No.
18 Q In 2012, did any employees perform work for LSI Title
19 Agency, Inc., in Oregon?
20 A No.
21 Q In 2012, did LSI Title Agency, Inc. have any offices in
22 Washington state?
23 A No.
24 Q In 2012, did LSI Title Agency, Inc. have any officers in
25 Washington state?
37
1 A No.
2 Q In 2012, did any employees perform work for LSI Title
3 Agency, Inc. in Washington state?
4 A No.
5 MR. TALEVICH: Exhibit 206, please.
6 BY MR. TALEVICH
7 Q Have you seen this document before?
8 A I have.
9 Q And I'm going to direct you to the bottom half of the
10 document, where it says "officers and directors."
11 Does this list correctly state the officers and directors
12 of LSI Title Agency, Inc. as of August 2012?
13 A It shows some of them, but not all.
14 Q Would you say that at least some of these are the key
15 officers in LSI Title Agency, Inc.?
16 A Absolutely, yes.
17 Q Does it correctly state their work locations?
18 A It does.
20 BY MR. TALEVICH
22 A Yes, I do.
23 Q What does it say at the top left?
24 A "Director's officers report."
25 Q And is there a date on the top right?

38
1 A Yes, August 20, 2014.
2 Q And in the gray bar below that, what does it say?
3 A "ServiceLink Title Agency, Inc. (formerly known as LSI
4 Title Agency Inc.)"
5 Q Do you know how this document was created?
6 A I believe it's a document that's created off of the system
7 that was available to a corporate secretary, and that the
8 corporate secretary could run this type of report on a given
9 date.
10 Q Are you referring to a specific person?
11 A Yes. I believe that would have been April Johnson.
12 Q And do you know who created this document?
13 A I believe that it would have been April Johnson.
14 Q Okay. Was that the same person who actually keeps the
15 corporate records related to LSI Title Agency, Inc. and
16 ServiceLink Title Agency, Inc.?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And again, I'm going to go through this list and ask you,
19 if you can, state what the person's title is, what their
20 responsibilities were, and where their work location was. So I
21 believe we've talked about her, but we're in the 2014 period
22 now. Jill Cadwell?
23 A Yes. Jill Cadwell was a director, and she was -- she was
24 the individual who ran the entire operations in Coraopolis for
25 the title originations group.

39
1 Q Michael L. Gravelle?
2 A Yes. Michael Gravelle was a director, and he was also
3 chief counsel. And he was located -- or is located in
4 Jacksonville.
5 Q And then officers, we just spoke about Jill Cadwell.
6 Was she president by this point?
7 A Correct, she was.
8 Q What were her duties on August 20, 2014?
9 A Primarily the same. She also -- she really oversaw the
10 day-to-day operations of the LSI Title Agency in Coraopolis,
11 but she then had responsibility for the offices in Texas and
12 California, as well.
13 Q Mark E. Braden?
14 A Mark E. Braden was the chief information officer for
15 ServiceLink, and he was located in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.
16 Q Robert J. Caruso?
17 A Robert Caruso was EVP of servicing, that being for the
18 servicing services. And he was located in Charlotte, North
19 Carolina.
20 Q Richard L. Cox?
21 A Richard Cox was EVP and chief tax officer, and he was
22 located in Jacksonville, Florida.
23 Q We stated Mike Gravelle already; correct?
24 A Correct.
25 Q Kirk Larsen?
40
1 A Kirk Larsen was a chief financial officer and EVP, and he
2 was located in Jacksonville.
3 Q Miriam Moore?
4 A Miriam Moore is an EVP and ran the default services, and
5 she is located in Irvine, California.
6 Q Marcus Spatafore?
7 A Marcus Spatafore is general counsel for ServiceLink, EVP,
8 and he is located in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.
9 Q David Steinmetz?
10 A David Steinmetz is EVP of the valuation appraisal
11 services, and he is located in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.
12 Q David Holland?
13 A David Holland is a senior VP in finance, and he is located
14 in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.
15 Q Penny C. Mercadante?
16 A Penny is a senior VP and oversight of HR and admin, and
17 she is also located in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.
18 Q Daniel K. Murphy?
19 A Daniel Murphy is senior VP and treasurer, and he is
20 located in Jacksonville, Florida.
21 Q Jeffrey A. Sanderson?
22 A Jeff Sanderson is chief technology officer, and he is
23 located in Irvine, California.
24 Q Colleen Haley?
25 A Colleen Haley is the vice president and assistant

41
1 corporate secretary, and located in Jacksonville, Florida.
2 Q Karen Harper?
3 A Karen Harper is the corporate human resource director,
4 vice president, located in Jacksonville, Florida.
5 Q And we've mentioned this name already, but let's jump
6 ahead to August 20, 2014.
7 Laurie Leenhouts?
8 A Yes. Laurie Leenhouts remained in her position as vice
9 president of title and closing services in the Grapevine,
10 Texas, operation.
11 Q You've said "Grapevine, Texas," and you've said "Irving,
12 Texas." Is that the same office that moved, or are they two
13 different locations existing at the same time?
14 A Yeah, they were two locations existing at the same time.
15 And subsequently, the Grapevine office did locate into the
16 Irving office.
17 Q Todd Nelson?
18 A Todd Nelson was in legal, and he's a vice president,
19 located in Jacksonville.
20 Q We spoke about Greg Plizga, but let's jump ahead to
21 August 20, 2014, again.
22 What were his position, duties, and location in 2014?
23 A Yes. Greg Plizga is vice president and worked in the
24 legal department. He's the primary attorney that we work with
25 for contracts and the like, for ServiceLink Title Agency, Inc.
42
1 Q And did his work location change in 2014?
2 A I'm sorry. It's in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.
3 Q Carl Utter?
4 A Yes. Carl Utter is VP and worked in the tax group, as the
5 tax director, and he's located in Jacksonville, Florida.
6 Q Stephanie Wells?
7 A Stephanie Wells worked in the tax group, as well, and is
8 the vice president, and located in Jacksonville, Florida.
9 Q And April L. Johnson?
10 A April Johnson is the assistant corporate secretary, and
11 she's located in Jacksonville, Florida.
12 Q Those names that we just went through, and that list, does
13 that list contain all of the key decision-makers for
14 ServiceLink Title Agency, Inc., in August 2014?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Were there any key decision-makers, in August 2014, for
17 ServiceLink Title Agency, Inc., that were not on that list?
18 A No.
20 BY MR. TALEVICH
22 A Yes.
23 Q Do you see the portion where it says "election of
24 director"?
25 A Yes.
43
1 Q And we spoke about Michael L. Gravelle already; is that
2 correct?
3 A Correct.
4 Q And then looking at the second page, do you see where it
5 says "ServiceLink Title Company, sole shareholder"?
6 A Yes.
7 Q What's the relationship of ServiceLink Title Company to
8 ServiceLink Title Agency, Inc.?
9 A It would be the parent company.
11 BY MR. TALEVICH
13 A Yes.
14 Q Can you tell me the date of the document, at the top?
15 A April 18, 2014.
16 Q And do you see where it says "annual meeting"?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Can you read the language below that, please?
19 A "Resolved that this meeting is designed [sic] as the
20 annual meeting of the board of directors of the company for the
21 calendar year 2014."
22 Q Okay. And I'm not going to go through this whole list
23 with you, but have you reviewed this list previously?
24 A I have.
25 Q And are there any differences between the list in

44
1 Exhibit 218 and the list we just went through in Exhibit 216?
2 A Yes. Chris Azur is on this list. And Pat Sheehy is on
3 this list, and not on the other list.
4 Q Okay. Do you know why that is?
5 A Yes. Chris moved up to the holding company, and Pat
6 Sheehy was no longer with the company in August of 2014.
7 Q And if you turn to Page 4 of that document --
8 A Yes.
9 Q -- where it says "sole director"?
10 A Michael Gravelle.
11 Q And we've talked about him already; correct?
12 A Correct.
14 BY MR. TALEVICH
16 A Yes.
17 Q And can you summarize this document?
18 A The document names Jill Cadwell as the director.
19 Q And which entity is listed at the bottom, by the
20 signature?
21 A ServiceLink Title Company.
22 Q And Mike Gravelle again; is that correct?
23 A It is correct.
24 Q And can you turn to Exhibit 220, please?
25 MR. TALEVICH: Or can the clerk please hand

45
2 BY MR. TALEVICH
4 A Yes.
5 Q Can you summarize this document?
6 A Yes. Chris Azur was removed as chief executive officer,
7 effective July 16, 2014; and Jill Cadwell was thereby named and
8 elected as the president of the company, effective July 16,
9 2014.
10 Q And Christopher Azur, did you happen to know where he
11 worked out of?
12 A Yes. He worked out of Coraopolis, Pennsylvania.
13 Q How about Pat Sheehy, do you know where he worked out of?
14 A Pat Sheehy worked out of Jacksonville, Florida.
15 Q In August 2014, did ServiceLink Title Agency, Inc. have
16 any offices within Oregon?
17 A No.
19 any officers located in Oregon?
20 A No.
21 Q In August 2014, did any employees perform work for
22 ServiceLink Title Agency, Inc., in Oregon?
23 A No.
25 any offices in Washington state?

46
VERKUYLEN - Cross (by Mr. Stafne)
1 A No.
3 any officers in Washington state?
4 A No.
5 Q In August 2014, did any employees perform work for
6 ServiceLink Title Agency, Inc. in Washington state?
7 A No.
8 MR. TALEVICH: I have nothing further, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: Mr. Stafne?
10 CROSS EXAMINATION
11 BY MR. STAFNE
12 Q Mr. Verkuylen, when I use the term "LSI," what do you
13 understand that to mean?
14 A I believe it means LSI Title Company or LSI Title Agency.
15 Q Okay. Is there a distinction? Is there an LSI Title
16 Company and an LSI Title Agency?
17 A There was.
18 Q Okay. In 2012?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Okay. On -- are you familiar with LSI Agency, Inc. doing
21 business in Washington as LSI Title Agency, Inc.?
22 MR. TALEVICH: Object. Beyond the scope, involving
23 a -- not LSI Title Agency, Inc.
24 MR. STAFNE: Your Honor, I will present evidence that
25 LSI Title Agency, Inc. was a resident corp at the time -- was a
47
1 resident title insurance agency at the time Mr. Robertson filed
2 his state complaint. Thereafter, LSI operated as LSI Agency,
3 Inc., doing business as LSI Title Agency. And I can present
4 evidence and ask him about it, if he knows, but from the Office
5 of the Insurance Commissioner.
6 THE COURT: Mr. Stafne, first of all, which company
7 is it that the Ninth Circuit asked me to sort out?
8 MR. STAFNE: I think it asked you to sort out LSI
9 Title Agency. However, LSI Agency, Inc. started doing business
10 as LSI Title Agency, Inc., after it withdrew its residency.
11 And I believe the evidence will show that there is no such
12 thing as LSI Agency, Inc. And therefore, you're dealing with
13 not -- a corporation that is doing business in Washington.
14 MR. TALEVICH: If I could --
15 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I'm getting totally confused
16 with the -- with the agencies. Give that to me one more time?
17 MR. STAFNE: Sure. Your Honor, LSI was doing
18 business in Washington with two licenses. One was a resident
19 license, which was LSI Title Agency, Inc. After Mr. Robertson
20 filed his complaint, LSI -- and just someone from LSI, it
21 wasn't clear who it was -- asked that that be dropped. It was
22 dropped in August of 2016 [sic], and we will present evidence
23 of that.
24 MR. ROBERTSON: Twelve.
25 MR. STAFNE: At that point, the only company that was

48
1 operating was LSI Agency, Inc., doing business as LSI Title
2 Agency, Inc. But Mr. Plizga has testified that there was no
3 LSI Agency, and we will show that it was. And if it was not a
4 corporation, then it was an entity doing business in Washington
5 at the time the case was removed.
6 THE COURT: Mr. Stafne, doesn't it make a difference
7 as to which one of these entities you actually sued? In other
8 words, there might be five or six other entities that are
9 similarly named. And if they are operating and filing with the
10 Insurance Commissioner, how does that make a difference to the
11 agency -- to the corporate entity that was actually sued in
12 your case?
13 MR. STAFNE: Well, we sued LSI Agency -- Title
14 Agency, Inc. And it's always been known as LSI Agency -- Title
15 Agency, Inc. And so they, after getting served with the suit
16 in state court, went to a -- well, went to an entity which
17 didn't exist and called themselves LSI Agency -- Title Agency,
18 Inc. So they are saying they're the same entity.
19 And under some of the recent Supreme Court precedent we
20 had cited to you, this is problematic on several levels. One,
21 we're dealing with insurance. Two, we're dealing with land
22 within Washington's borders. And so that brings up federalism.
23 And what would you suggest they be named, other than
24 what -- the name they're going by?
25 THE COURT: Okay. Well, I -- I'm sorry. I think you

49
1 just told me the same thing. Let me read back what you said.
2 It says, "Well, we sued LSI Agency -- Title Agency, Inc. But
3 it's always been known as LSI Agency -- Title Agency, Inc. And
4 so after getting served with the suit in state court, went to
5 a -- well, went to an entity which didn't exist and called
6 themselves LSI Agency -- Title Agency, Inc. So they are saying
7 they're the same entity. And under the Supreme Court" -- the
8 point is here, you're telling me who you sued, and those are
9 the same people that started doing business.
10 MR. STAFNE: I'm saying, at the time Mr. Robertson
11 sued LSI Title Agency, Inc., it had two licenses in Washington.
12 THE COURT: Okay. All right. That, I understand.
13 And that was what I got from the deposition. They had a
14 residence license, and they had a non-residence license. They
15 then dropped the residence license.
16 MR. STAFNE: Right.
17 THE COURT: Okay. How does that make a difference as
18 to LSI Agency, Inc.'s residency for purposes of removal?
19 MR. STAFNE: Because if they were bringing it as LSI,
20 Inc. -- or LSI Agency, which did not exist, then they would
21 have always been a Washington entity.
22 MR. TALEVICH: Your Honor, that's simply not true.
23 The party that he sued is LSI Title Agency, Inc., in June 2012.
24 That's always been the party at issue here. In the Ninth
25 Circuit case, the entity is defined, at the very beginning, as

50
1 LSI Title Agency, Inc., which is the Illinois corporation
2 that's in Exhibit 200, that's incorporated. And so the purpose
3 of this hearing is not to talk about any separate entity, to
4 what they did. And his questions also have nothing to do with
5 whether there's anyone actually located in Washington when
6 these companies are conducting business at a high level.
7 MR. STAFNE: I will also prove, Your Honor, that this
8 particular company is not -- is a group of subsidiaries and
9 individual organizations in individual states that, because of
10 insurance laws, operate in a way in which they have these
11 various entities.
12 But in this case, of course, they have the burden of
13 proving by a preponderance of the evidence that they're not a
14 Washington resident. And if, indeed, as Mr. Plizga has
15 testified, there is no LSI Agency -- or there -- there is no
16 LSI Agency, Inc., they're just doing business here in
17 Washington, without any corporate protections, but they're
18 doing it under a -- the d/b/a of LSI Title Agency, Inc. You do
19 have questions of fact which they have the -- to overcome in
20 the burden of convincing you.
21 Further, we will show that the company and the entity is
22 not credible, that -- and I -- why don't we reserve objection
23 on this, and I will continue on with asking him further
24 questions which will go to that point.
25 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Stafne, let's assume that

51
1 everything you told me is true, and they had these licenses,
2 and they had an employee here that was selling whatever,
3 insurance.
4 How does that make a difference for deciding where the
5 nerve center of this organization is? Because you could
6 have -- they could have people doing work all over the country,
7 and that still wouldn't make them -- the nerve center here in
8 Washington.
9 MR. STAFNE: And that's a very good point, Your
10 Honor. The problem, of course, is, if LSI Agency is not a
11 corporation, they're not entitled to diversity jurisdiction
12 under a corporation. And you have, in Plizga's deposition, the
13 admission that LSI Agency, Inc. is not a corporation.
14 MR. TALEVICH: It's a trade name under which LSI
15 operates. But again, the purpose of this hearing is to
16 determine the citizenship of the entity that Mr. Robertson
17 sued, and that the Ninth Circuit ruled on, which is LSI Title
18 Agency, Inc.
19 MR. STAFNE: Your Honor, I object to that, because
20 that's not what Mr. Plizga says. I realize that LSI attorneys
21 throughout this case have wanted to do the testifying. But in
22 the evidence before you, you will not find that.
23 THE COURT: Well, let's move on with our questioning.
24 But I -- I have to say, Mr. Stafne, I still don't
25 understand. Even if they were selling insurance, getting

52
1 title -- having an office in Bellevue, I don't know that it
2 makes a difference for determining where the nerve center is,
3 for purposes of establishing jurisdiction.
4 MR. STAFNE: Right. And I just want to be real clear
5 that you understand that we're saying, if this was LSI, Inc.,
6 and it did not exist, and was not a corporation, then there is
7 no nerve center test that you can apply to it.
8 THE COURT: Okay. Well, then let's go back and look
9 at exactly what entity did the Ninth Circuit return to me to
10 decide.
11 MR. STAFNE: The Ninth Circuit returned to you a
12 name, which is LSI Title Agency, Inc., which was, at the time
13 of removal, not associated with LSI Title Agency, Inc. It was,
14 at the time of -- that Mr. Robertson filed his lawsuit.
15 So you have the situation where we are claiming that it is
16 a resident title insurance company that purports to be doing
17 the foreclosing as a Washington company, in all of its
18 documents. And when Mr. Robertson brings suit, they go to the
19 office of the commissioner and say, "We don't want to be a
20 resident anymore. We want to go back, and we want to use our
21 other license," but their other license was not obtained as a
22 corporation. So at the time it was removed, while the name was
23 still the same, the entity was no longer a corporation.
24 THE COURT: All right.
25 MR. STAFNE: And I will -- if I might move on.

53
1 BY MR. STAFNE
2 Q Do you -- you indicated that you knew Mr. Finnell.
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q And what did you say his position was?
5 A He was with the legal department of the default services
6 group.
7 Q Are you a lawyer?
8 A No, I am not.
9 Q And do you know the ins and outs of subsidiaries and
10 non-subsidiaries?
11 A I do not.
12 Q Okay. And who paid your paycheck?
13 A In?
14 Q 2012.
15 A I believe the paycheck would have read "LPS."
16 Q Okay. And what's "LPS"?
17 A Lender Processing Services.
18 Q All right. Would you be so kind as to look at
19 Exhibit 115? Do you have that in front of you?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Could you briefly read the exhibit, and then I will ask
22 you some questions about it.
23 A Yes.
24 Q So my first question to you comes from Paragraph 2 of his
25 declaration to a Washington court under oath, where he says,

54
1 "One corporate division of LSI is LPS Default Title and
2 Closing."
3 Do you know if that's true or not true?
4 A I'm not really familiar with all the, you know, various
5 groups in the company and how they're named.
6 Q Okay. But so far as you know, it was Lender Processing
7 Services that owned LSI Title Company and Title Agency, Inc.;
8 correct?
9 A Lender Processing Services was on my check. I do not know
10 exactly how the company is structured.
11 Q Okay. I'd like to have you look at Paragraph 7.
12 And all I want to know is, do you have any reason to doubt
13 that that statement is true?
14 A I'm not familiar with the situation, so I couldn't make a
15 statement, one way or the other.
16 Q But you have no reason to doubt it's true?
17 A I have no reason to know whether it's true or not.
18 Q All right. And then Paragraph 8 says, "Plaintiff's
19 counsel details conversations he had with Mr. Russ Frazier, an
20 employee of LSI. Mr. Frazier does not work in LSI's default
21 title and closing division, and his group has no involvement
22 with default services."
23 Do you know if that statement is true?
24 A I know Mr. Russ Frazier, and he had worked in the
25 originations title production organization.

55
1 Q And he is different than the president?
2 A Mr. Ron Frazier, yes.
3 Q Okay. Do you know if he's related?
4 A I believe he was related.
5 Q Okay. And do you know what his position was?
6 A He worked in title production, which means if we got an
7 order, he would do the title search and work on the title
8 record as part of a process to create a title commitment.
9 Q Okay. I'd like you to look at Exhibit 116. And --
10 A I hope I don't have to read this.
11 Q You don't.
12 Now, what I'd like you to do is, go -- at the top, there's
13 a docket number. And I want you to go to Page 73 of 104.
14 A I'm sorry. Where do I see the number?
15 Q It's at the top. It's got, like -- you might have to --
16 yeah, remove the binder. I'm sorry.
17 A Seventy-three?
18 Q Yes. It's Page 73 of 104.
19 And first thing I want to ask you about is, do you see the
20 letterhead on this stationary?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And what is that letterhead?
23 A It has an LPS logo. And underneath it, it says, "LSI
24 Division, a Lender Processing Services Company."
25 Q Okay. So does that give you any more basis in order to

56
1 ask [sic] the question whether LSI -- or whether Lender
2 Processing Services was a subsidiary of LSI?
3 MR. TALEVICH: Objection, Your Honor. We're going to
4 different entities again, and I would renew my objection that
5 we focus on LSI Title Agency, Inc., the entity that
6 Mr. Robertson has sued.
8 BY MR. STAFNE
9 Q Okay. I'd like you to look at the "re."
10 Would you read for the Court what this letter is
11 regarding?
12 A "LSI Agency, Inc., d/b/a LSI Title Agency, Inc.," and then
13 a WAOIC number.
14 Q Okay. And if you go to Page 74 of that exhibit, do you
15 see the same letter but with a different date, referring to LSI
16 Agency, Inc., d/b/a LSI Title Agency, Inc.?
17 A Yes. It looks the same to me.
18 Q Okay. Do you know who Christine Brant was?
19 A She's a paralegal, working with Greg Plizga.
20 Q Okay. So you would expect that Greg Plizga would have
21 known about LSI Agency, Inc.?
22 MR. TALEVICH: Objection. Calls for speculation and
23 beyond the scope; different entity.
25 ////
57
1 BY MR. STAFNE
2 Q Are you aware of any regulatory actions taken against --
3 and I'm not sure who it is now, but let's say LSI companies,
4 for commingling of funds?
5 MR. TALEVICH: Objection. Relevance, beyond the
6 scope.
7 MR. STAFNE: Your Honor, I believe it goes to
8 credibility of this company. I will present a sworn statement
9 from various of its supposed officers, and they will be
10 directly conflicting.
11 MR. TALEVICH: And none of it will have to do with
12 the location of LSI's high-level officers and offices during
13 the relevant time period.
14 THE COURT: Mr. Stafne, I understand that you want to
15 establish for me that this has been run like a shell game.
16 And -- but the Ninth Circuit has given me a very specific task.
17 And they've asked me to simply find out what the locations are
18 for these business entities. And I am not understanding your
19 arguments about their credibility. That's for the Ninth
20 Circuit, and whatever other issues you have there. I don't
21 have the -- I don't have the authority to do that, except if
22 you're attacking the documents that have been presented to
23 be -- to establish the locations.
24 MR. STAFNE: Well, I am, Your Honor. I'm saying that
25 LSI Agency, Inc., which they claim does not exist, has
58
1 presented you no documents. And yet, here we have numerous
2 letters going to the Insurance Commissioner, saying that that
3 is the entity which is doing business in Washington under the
4 name LSI Agency, Inc.
5 THE COURT: But whether or not they -- whether or not
6 they have been fined or sued or disciplined, I'm not
7 understanding how that makes a difference in whether or not the
8 documents they presented, and the testimony that this witness
9 has presented as to where those officers are located, how that
10 touches on the credibility of those things.
11 MR. STAFNE: So now I think you asked me two
12 questions there; one, how that relates to the credibility.
13 Well, you have to determine, one, which company -- excuse me,
14 not company -- but which entity they're talking about.
15 LSI Agency is not a corporation, it's a name, and its
16 people are operating in Washington state. And so it's not
17 entitled to the corporate-diversity-nerve-center analysis that
18 they want to ask you about. So you have to decide who is
19 actually operating here. And if it is not a corporation, then
20 you have to decide that. And I think that you will see that
21 there really was no corporation here.
22 I understand what you're saying about the shell games, but
23 you're saying that you can't look under those shell games to
24 see if we're really dealing with a corporation. You're saying
25 that this Court is -- its hands are tied if someone tells you
59
1 they're the corporation.
2 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Stafne, one of the things that
3 you could attack is the documents themselves, in other words,
4 the articles of incorporation. You could tell me that this was
5 a fraudulent document. That's not what you're attempting to
6 do. You could attack his knowledge as to where it is that
7 people worked out of, or who was holding what offices. That, I
8 understand. But, you know, he wasn't called here on the issues
9 of whether or not there were fines in 2006. He wasn't part
10 as -- he didn't offer testimony about a suit in King County.
11 So, you know, I'm not understanding what you're trying to
12 do with this witness, when you've got to establish that he
13 would know something about those things, and then you've got to
14 establish that that actually attacks the documents that they
15 put in.
16 MR. STAFNE: Sure. And I think what you're telling
17 me is, he's already said he doesn't know the answer. And to
18 the extent there's an answer, we've got Plizga's deposition,
19 and I can call Robertson to show the others. And I'm happy
20 with that, and I will let this witness go, except I want to
21 make sure is --
22 BY MR. STAFNE
23 Q Are you sure who you're working for?
24 A Is that a question?
25 Q Yes.
60
1 A I believe I work for ServiceLink, yes.
2 Q Okay. And in 2012?
3 A 2012, for LSI.
4 Q But even though you were paid by Lender Processing
5 Services?
6 A They provided the HR services and check services.
7 Q Do you recall testifying -- during your deposition, I
8 asked you whether or not you were an officer of LSI or LSI
9 Title Agency, Inc., and you said potentially -- it potentially
10 could have been either, depending on the filing and the time
11 period.
12 A Yes. I think I expressed that I didn't know exactly the
13 filing names of the company, that I wasn't involved with that.
14 Q Okay. And the term "LSI" had a broader meaning than "LSI
15 Title Agency, Inc.," when you used it when you were working;
16 correct?
17 A Yeah. I think in the industry, if I was at a Wells Fargo
18 meeting, I would say, "I'm with LSI Title." I wouldn't get
19 into the legal, specific names, or the parent company name, or
20 anything like that.
21 Q Okay. But LSI Title Agency wasn't a parent, or was it a
22 parent company?
23 A LSI Title Company, I believe, was a parent company of LSI
25 Q Okay. And what's the basis for that belief?

61
1 A The documents that I've reviewed here.
2 MR. STAFNE: Okay. I don't have any further
3 questions of this witness, Your Honor.
4 MR. TALEVICH: Nothing further, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: Anyone else?
6 MR. BURNSIDE: Nothing from Chase, Your Honor.
7 MR. FIG: No, Your Honor.
8 THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.
9 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
10 THE COURT: Any further witnesses?
11 MR. STAFNE: Yes, Your Honor.
12 MR. TALEVICH: I'm sorry. LSI has no further
13 witnesses, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: All right. So LSI rests its position?
15 MR. TALEVICH: Yes, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Stafne?
17 MR. STAFNE: Your Honor, before we begin, I'd like to
18 make a brief opening statement about what we intend to prove.
19 THE COURT: That's fine.
20 MR. STAFNE: With regard to LSI, Robertson will
21 present evidence tending to prove that at the time Robertson
22 filed this case in state court, LSI had two entities operating
23 in Washington, regulated by the Office of the Insurance
24 Commissioner. One was LSI Title Agency, Inc., and the other
25 was LSI Agency, Inc. LSI Agency, Inc., was not a corporation,
62
1 and thus was an unaffiliated entity doing business in
2 Washington state in an area regulated by Washington's insurance
3 industry. Actually, both of them were.
4 At the time Robertson filed this lawsuit, records showed
5 LSI Title Agency was a resident company, with its principal
6 place in business of Washington. And we will show that that
7 principal place went from supposedly California, where we will
8 prove that there never was such a business, to Illinois. And
9 then, according to the documents filed with the insurance
10 company, the Office of Insurance Commissioner, was set first in
11 Clark County, in Vancouver, and then in Bellevue, Washington.
12 Following -- Robertson filed a complaint with the OIC.
13 Following that resolution of that complaint, in which both LSI
14 Agency -- Title Agency, Inc. and LSI Agency were found to have
15 violated Washington laws, LSI -- and again, LSI is just always
16 stated on these documents as "LSI, a division" or -- never "LSI
17 Title Insurance Company" -- filed with the -- with the offices
18 of insurance company [sic] to cancel its residence license. It
19 was canceled, leaving LSI Agency, again, non-corporation a,
20 using the trade name of a corporation as the entity which
21 exists. We can't be sure, based on the testimony you have
22 before you, which LSI Title Agency was claiming to be a
23 corporation on the thousands of -- or tens of thousands of
24 default notices that it sent out telling people that it was a
25 corporation formed under Washington law, RCW 61.24. Now LSI

63
1 concedes, in Plizga's deposition, that there was no LSI Agency,
2 Inc.
3 Robertson will further present evidence challenging the
4 credibility of LSI's evidence and claims that it had numerous
5 nerve centers. And we would like to ask to brief the law on
6 that, because there's been some recent cases out of New York.
7 After Judge Rakoff's case, there was another case where they
8 stressed the point that for purposes of diversity jurisdiction,
9 you have to have one citizenship. You can't have three. And
10 in this particular case, I think when you look at what they are
11 saying, you've got to also consider the possibility that
12 Washington is one of the citizenships here, because we're not
13 dealing with just a corporation. You have to find, on the
14 basis of some evidence -- and you have none -- that they were
15 not using the non-corporation to pursue this matter.
16 Robertson contends that LSI Agency is not a corporation,
17 and that LSI Title Agency, Inc. is a sham corporation that is
18 not entitled to the benefits of citizenship under diversity
19 jurisdiction, as the statute is written and as it was devised
20 to implement federalism and Tenth Amendment concerns.
21 THE COURT: Mr. Stafne, one of the problems in
22 following your argument and in following the depositions is the
23 names of these entities, because they're so similar.
24 MR. STAFNE: I agree.
25 THE COURT: Would it be easier if we simply dropped

64
1 the "LSI" and we talked about "Title" and we talked about
2 "Agency"? Because isn't that really the difference in the two
3 names?
4 MR. STAFNE: No, because there are a lot more names.
5 Like Mr. Verkuylen testified in his deposition, we've got it --
6 it's part of what we're presenting -- he gave an example, say,
7 LSI Title Company of Alabama. I mean, we're dealing with state
8 regulation of insurance, and so each state has its own
9 regulations. And so that's one matter. Of course, it's not
10 determinative. I think the chief judge of the Eastern District
11 just determined that in a case last year, that it's not
12 determinative. But it is a factor when you go into
13 considering --
14 THE COURT: Mr. Stafne, I'm just trying to muddle
15 along here and make sure I understand you.
16 MR. STAFNE: Okay. I'm sorry.
17 THE COURT: The Ninth Circuit basically says, on
18 November 23, 2012, LSI Title Agency Inc. -- which they refer to
19 as "LSI." I think that's unfortunate, but that's what they
20 call it. That's the entity. LSI Title Agency is what I'm
21 supposed to decide the jurisdiction issue on.
22 MR. STAFNE: Sure. But LSI Title Agency was also the
23 trade name of the entity that wasn't a corporation. So -- and
24 this was at the same time. It was -- it's unfortunate, but the
25 Ninth Circuit had a similar problem with regard to when it said

65
1 that -- and I do think you've gotten kind of an unfortunate
2 position here, because they told you there was no problem with
3 Ohio. But the -- from my perspective -- and I've already said
4 this -- I think you have the duty to undertake a full analysis
5 of your jurisdiction.
6 But all I'm saying here is that LSI Title Agency, we don't
7 know what they're referring to. And I'm going to show you, in
8 the evidence coming up, that, for example, when they provided
9 this Court with its corporate disclosure statement, LSI Title
10 Agency said that it was a subsidiary of LSI Title Company, a
11 California corporation. And we will present you with evidence
12 that -- from the Secretary of State that there's never been
13 such an entity. We will also provide you with other notice of
14 removals, that even -- in the Prius (phonetic) case, that were
15 inconsistent with what they say here; that they're all over the
16 board. The reason they're telling you that they can't pick one
17 is because they picked three different ones in other federal
18 cases.
19 I mean, it's all kind of a sham, in my view. And I'm
20 biased, but you're not. But all I want to do is --
21 THE COURT: Well, thank you. Otherwise, I assumed
22 that you had filed things that said I was.
23 MR. STAFNE: Well -- and I don't necessarily want to
24 retract all of those, at this point, but --
25 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Stafne, my only point is that

66
1 if I -- I cannot rule for you if I can't understand you; so
2 you've got to make these titles as simple as possible for me to
3 follow. And finding a way to do that would be helpful. But I
4 don't want to belabor this any further.
5 MR. STAFNE: Well, how would it help? Because we've
6 got -- we've got this LSI, Inc., that doesn't exist as a
7 corporation, using the trade name as LSI Title Agency, Inc.
8 That's the problem. And I'll be happy to do it any way you
9 want.
10 THE COURT: All I was suggesting is that every time
11 we have a record, we drop "LSI," and we go with "Title" or
12 "Agency," what the different word is for the entities that
13 you're trying to prove.
14 But, look --
15 MR. STAFNE: I'll try that.
16 THE COURT: -- you run your case the way you want to
17 run it. But the problem is, is that every time there's a
18 stumble or a mistake in the title, it means I have a more
19 difficult time understanding where you're going.
20 Now, you didn't say anything about Chase, and you didn't
21 say anything about BNY.
22 Are you intending to offer up any testimony about them?
23 MR. STAFNE: Well, yes. We're going to present --
24 and I would have made the same statement as an opening
25 statement, that you were gracious enough to allow me to speak

67
1 before the first witness. And I told you what I intended to
2 prove. And you said, "Well, some of this, I don't think you
3 can." So I made my offer of proof, so I think we're through
4 with them.
5 THE COURT: Okay. So you're not going to be offering
6 any other witnesses. So, then, one of the things --
7 MR. STAFNE: Except for the designated depositions.
8 And actually, Duncan Robertson is going to testify with regard
9 to not so much Chase, but with regard to Bank of New York
10 Mellon Trust.
11 THE COURT: What I'm trying to do is, if we can
12 complete the materials on each one of them, they can go.
13 MR. STAFNE: Sure.
14 THE COURT: In other words, it looks like LSI is in
15 for the long haul. The other ones are here for short hits.
16 Can we move it along so that we can --
17 MR. STAFNE: Yes. I can have Duncan Robertson come
18 up and testify with regard to Bank of New York Mellon Trust
19 Company, N.A.
20 And if you've already ruled Mr. Burnside -- I would call
21 Mr. Burnside as my first witness. I assume you're going to not
22 hear his testimony. I would --
23 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Stafne, I don't understand how
24 calling Mr. Burnside furthers your position.
25 MR. STAFNE: So our position is that Bank of New York

68
1 Mellon Trust Company, National Association, was never
2 represented by either Mr. Burnside or Mr. Fig. And
3 accordingly, that is one of the reasons why they made what we
4 now all know is the false statement. And I would be calling
5 him up there simply to ask why that false statement was made,
6 when Mr. Burnside, of all people, should have known about the
7 requirement that if you're representing a national association,
8 you need to allege the location of their main office under the
9 articles of association, based on Supreme Court precedence
10 stemming back to 2006.
11 THE COURT: Well, let's assume that Mr. Burnside made
12 a mistake. That doesn't change where the articles of
13 incorporation say the main office is.
14 MR. STAFNE: Well, it could make a difference.
15 Because if Mr. Burnside did not have authority, or was not
16 representing that person, and he made those wrong statements,
17 the wrong -- the whole removal petition would be a nullity.
18 THE COURT: Well, how is it that you have standing to
19 go in -- how is it that you're harmed if Mr. Burnside didn't
20 have authority? Isn't that between Mr. Burnside and his
21 client?
22 MR. STAFNE: No. My client has authority and
23 standing, under federalism and the Tenth Amendment, to raise
24 that issue.
25 Appropriate case on point would be Bond vs. United States,

69
1 which has been decided within, I think, the last three or four
2 years, and it has been cited with approval by the United States
3 Supreme Court. It involved a situation where a woman was
4 charged with a federal crime. And she basically said that the
5 feds didn't have a right to write that crime, because it was
6 primarily local in nature. And so the government alleged she
7 didn't have standing; that would have to be an issue raised by
8 the state. And the Supreme Court said no. Much like with
9 separation of powers and -- that an individual person does have
10 standing to raise that issue.
11 And as you know, Mr. Robertson is an Oregon resident. If
12 they were doing business here as LSI Agency, and not a
13 corporation, then the person -- the entity which is most
14 affected by this suit is the State of Washington. And so we're
15 not dealing with a typical diversity action. And Robertson, I
16 believe, has standing to raise that.
17 But again, these are issues that I think you've kind of
18 disavowed, and I obviously have to go along with your disavowed
19 [sic]. But these are the issues that will be raised above.
20 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Stafne, I'm not going to let
21 you call Mr. Burnside.
22 MR. STAFNE: Okay. I didn't expect you would.
23 THE COURT: So for the record, let me understand it.
24 I don't understand how it is that an inquiry into a
25 lawyer's authority to act on behalf of their client is

70
1 something that he would be able to testify to anyway. I
2 believe that his engagement and his authority is subject to
3 attorney-client privilege. He's made a representation to the
4 Court that he represented these individuals when he files a
5 notice of appearance.
6 If you believe that Mr. Burnside has engaged in some sort
7 of act that violates the rules of professional conduct, you can
8 file a complaint. But I'm not here to litigate that.
9 MR. STAFNE: Okay. I understand.
10 I think under Supreme Court precedent, it's not -- you
11 don't get involved in attorney-client privilege unless there's
12 an attorney-client relationship. And courts have always taken
13 the position that they have the ability to inquire into an
14 attorney-client relationship, especially where the attorney is
15 making statements that aren't true. But I understand your
16 ruling, and accept it.
17 THE COURT: Okay. So Mr. Burnside isn't going to be
18 called.
19 Do you have any other witnesses that you wish to call as
20 to Chase?
21 MR. STAFNE: As to Chase, no.
22 THE COURT: All right. Then if there are no other
23 witnesses, are you ready to tell me why it is that what they
24 have proposed isn't sufficient?
25 I should give Mr. Burnside an opportunity to make his

71
1 closing argument on that, and then you can rebut.
2 MR. STAFNE: And I'm not sure what you mean by
3 "proposed." That they be dismissed or that you find --
4 THE COURT: No. Let them walk out of the room today,
5 and say, "I'll send you the decision in ten days."
6 MR. STAFNE: Oh, I don't think I have any problem
7 with that. But the Court does know that we have offered this
8 other testimony, and we'll offer testimony in our case in chief
9 regarding this issue. But I have no problem with Mr. Burnside
10 leaving --
11 THE COURT: Which issue? As to Chase or --
12 MR. STAFNE: Yeah. Well, as to Mr. Burnside and what
13 he said, and Chase's -- to the extent Chase may be
14 disadvantaged, if, indeed, they made false statements, along
15 with LSI, about the -- in the removal petitions, and stuck to
16 them to the point where they got you to agree to the false
17 statements. If they have an interest in that, that's fine. We
18 do intend to continue to present information about that.
19 But I don't -- if Chase doesn't want to be here, that's
20 fine. But we -- it is a part of our case, to deal with that
21 issue.
22 THE COURT: Okay. Now, Mr. Burnside --
23 MR. BURNSIDE: A few points, Your Honor.
24 Fundamentally, any representations made about Bank of New
25 York Mellon in a removal petition has nothing to do with where

72
1 Chase's main offices are located, as stated in the articles of
2 association, so it's irrelevant.
3 Second, Your Honor's already ruled on his motion for proof
4 of authority, and he hasn't appealed any of that.
5 Third, there was no false statement made by me, in any
6 event. Ultimately, I didn't file the removal papers. Matt
7 Sullivan, in my office, did. He lives in Ireland. If you want
8 to get him from Ireland, good luck.
9 But ultimately, it doesn't matter, because the question
10 before the Court, as directed by the Ninth Circuit, is, let's
11 determine if there was, in fact, diversity jurisdiction. Where
12 are the main offices, stated in the articles of association?
13 We've established, I think with conclusive proof, unrefuted
14 evidence, that it is Columbus, Ohio. He hasn't challenged that
15 in the slightest.
16 So as a result, I think it would be appropriate for Your
17 Honor to rule that Chase has established its citizenship as
18 Columbus, Ohio, and that I don't represent Bank of New York
19 Mellon at all anymore. And nothing I said about -- or didn't
20 say about Bank of New York, previously, affects where Chase is
21 located.
22 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Burnside, Mr. Stafne has
23 indicated that he's got other testimony that he wants to offer
24 up that could touch on you or your client.
25 MR. BURNSIDE: I'll stick around.

73
1 THE COURT: I thought you might. Thank you.
2 All right. Let's put on some testimony, please.
3 MR. STAFNE: All righty. Why don't we call Cheryll
4 Penn.
5 THE COURT: Which entity does this go to?
6 MR. STAFNE: This goes to LSI.
7 THE COURT: What about -- Mr. Fig, is --
8 MR. STAFNE: Mr. Fig might want to stay too, because
9 we're going to talk about -- I have no objection to him
10 leaving.
11 THE WITNESS: Hello?
12 MR. STAFNE: Hello. Is this Cheryll Penn?
13 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
14 MR. STAFNE: Hi, Ms. Penn. My name is Scott Stafne.
15 We're here in the courtroom of Judge Pechman, and I'd like to
16 ask you some questions, if I might.
17 THE WITNESS: Okay.
18 THE COURT: Ms. Penn, this is Judge Pechman. Before
19 you're asked questions in this judicial proceeding, I need to
20 swear you in.
21 Would you please raise your right hand?
22 CHERYLL PENN, having been duly sworn, was examined and
24 THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Stafne.
25
74
PENN - Direct (by Mr. Stafne)
2 BY MR. STAFNE
3 Q Ms. Penn, would you please explain to the Court how you
4 got involved in determining who LSI Agency -- Title Agency,
5 Inc. and LSI Agency, Inc. were?
6 A Okay. Let's see. I'm trying to look at some of the
7 original e-mail that I got in this matter.
8 It came to me from investigator Marianne Azevedo. That
9 was back in 2013, I believe. She forwarded to me something
10 from Duncan Robertson. He had some questions about LSI. And
11 because I was working in the licensing department of the
12 Insurance Commissioner's Office at that time, she forwarded his
13 inquiry to me.
14 Q And what was your position with the insurance department
15 at that time?
16 A I was a compliance analyst.
17 Q And would you tell the Court what a compliance analyst
18 does?
19 A Okay. I was a compliance analyst in the licensing
20 division of the Insurance Commissioner's Office. And what I
21 did was to make sure that the individuals that we licensed, as
22 well as the licensed business entities, were in compliance with
23 the Washington statutes and regulations.
24 Q Okay. And had you received a call from Mr. Robertson?
25 A Prior to receiving that e-mail?

75
1 Q Yes.
2 A Not to my recollection.
3 Q Okay. And what did the e-mail ask you to do?
4 A Okay. I'm sorry. This is not a hundred percent in my
5 mind, right now. I'm looking back at the e-mail.
6 I was asked to confirm principal place of business for LSI
7 Title Agency.
8 Q And do you recall why you were asked to do that?
9 A No, I do not.
10 Q Okay. I had spoke with your attorney and had sent several
11 exhibits to you.
12 Do you have the exhibit marked Defendant's Exhibit 210?
13 A Yes, I do.
14 Q Okay. Do you recognize --
15 MR. TALEVICH: Can I have a moment, please? Sorry.
16 Go ahead.
17 BY MR. STAFNE
18 Q Okay. Could you tell us who the e-mail was directed to?
19 A It was directed to Monica Solberg, who's a senior
20 licensing technician.
21 Q Okay. And who is it from?
22 A It is from Gregory -- I'm not sure how to pronounce his
23 last name -- Plizga.
24 Q Okay. And do you see the cc's there? Could you read the
25 name of the people that were cc'd on that e-mail?

76
1 A James Dufficy, Al someone, Christine Brant.
2 Q Is that Al someone's last name spelled V-E-R-K-U-Y-L-E-N?
3 A That's what it looks like on the copy I have, yes.
4 Q Okay. And what was the last person copied on it?
5 A LSI Title, Christine Brant.
6 Q Okay. And can you tell the Court the date that was
7 written?
8 A August 16, 2012.
9 Q Okay. And what was the purpose of that e-mail, if you can
10 tell?
11 A LSI Title Agency was requesting the cancellation of their
12 license.
13 Q Okay. And was that a particular type of license?
14 A It was a business entity title agency license.
15 Q Okay. And was it a resident title license?
16 A That, I do not know.
17 Q Can you look at the e-mail and see if it describes as to
18 whether they were seeking to cancel a resident title license?
19 A Okay. Yes. It does say that, "This e-mail is to confirm
20 LSI Title Agency, Inc. requests to surrender the
21 above-referenced resident title license."
22 Q Okay. And there's some writing on this e-mail.
23 Do you know what it -- who wrote it?
24 A Yes, I do.
25 Q Who?
77
1 A Monica Solberg.
2 Q Okay. And it says, "Canceled license effective on 8/13."
3 And is that her initials?
4 A Yes, it is.
5 Q Excuse me, 8/13/2012.
6 Is that her initials? Do you recognize those there?
7 A Yes, I do, and those are hers.
8 Q Okay. I'd like to take you now to Exhibit 211, which is
9 an application summary.
10 Do you have that in front of you?
11 A Yes, I do.
12 Q Okay. And could you -- there are two summaries here;
13 right?
14 A That's correct.
15 Q Okay. Let's talk about the first summary, which is
16 Page 1.
17 Was this an application for a resident license?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And how do you know that?
20 A Because the business address has a Bellevue, Washington,
21 address listed. And if it's a Washington address, it is
22 considered a resident license.
23 Q Okay. Also, if you notice -- I think it's one, two,
24 three, four down -- it has "resident licensee," and then
25 there's a "Y" there.

78
1 Do you see that Y?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Okay. And would that also indicate to you it's a resident
4 license?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Okay. And do you have any recollection of being told that
7 LSI had changed its principal place of residence from
8 California to Illinois, and was now moving it to Washington?
9 A No.
10 MR. TALEVICH: Objection. Calls for hearsay.
11 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
12 BY MR. STAFNE
13 Q Okay. And I'd like you to go to -- there's -- the first
14 question there, "Has the business entity or any owner, partner,
15 officer, or director of the business entity, or member or
16 manager of a limited liability company, been convicted of or
17 currently charged with committing a crime, had a judgment
18 withheld or deferred, which has not been previously reported to
19 this state?"
20 A I see that question, yes.
21 Q And do you see the response?
22 A Yes.
23 Q What is that response?
24 A "No."
25 Q All right. Now, I would like to take you to the next

79
1 application summary, and I think that starts on Page 3. And it
2 says the licensee name is LSI Agency, Inc., doing business as
3 LSI Title Agency, Inc.
4 Do you see that?
5 A Yes, I do.
6 Q Okay. And is it -- and is this a resident license? Can
7 you tell?
8 A It is not a resident license.
9 Q And how do you know that?
10 A Well, two different ways. The business address has an
11 address in Pennsylvania. And then one, two, three, four -- the
12 fourth line down from the top has "resident license." It's
13 marked "no."
14 Q And can you tell us who the prospective licensee, what its
15 name was?
16 A LSI Agency, Inc., doing business as LSI Title Agency, Inc.
17 Q Okay. Is it customary that an entity will do business in
18 Washington as both a resident and non-resident licensee?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Why do they do that?
21 A Well, if you're based in Washington, you can sell business
22 in Washington as a resident licensee. But if you're based
23 outside of Washington, and you still need to do occasional
24 business in Washington, you have to hold a non-resident license
25 from the state you're actually in.

80
1 Q Okay. And can you tell with regard to each particular
2 transaction whether they're acting as a resident insurance
3 licensee or a non-resident insurance licensee?
4 A I'm not sure. Could you explain what you mean by "each
5 transaction"?
6 Q Yeah. One of the things we're trying to decide here is
7 who would have -- which LSI Title, this trade name for LSI
8 Agency, Inc., which may not be a corporation, whether it would
9 be the one that is sending out these notices of default which
10 say that they're coming from a corporation authorized under
11 64.21 -- or 61.24.
12 And I'm trying to figure out if there's an easy way to
13 tell how this happens, or -- am I making -- can you understand
14 what I'm saying?
15 A I think I have a better understanding of what you're
16 asking me now. And the answer to that question, from my
17 perspective, is, no, there is not an easy way to tell whether
18 it's a resident entity handling the transaction or a
19 non-resident entity handling the transaction.
20 Q Okay. So in this case, you couldn't tell whether it is
21 LSI Title Agency, Inc. that was involved -- that was the
22 resident company, or whether it was LSI Agency, Inc., doing
23 business as LSI Title Agency, Inc.; correct?
24 A That is correct.
25 Q Let me ask you this. Is it common in the industry that

81
1 someone will use both a resident and non-resident name for
2 different companies, but actually state that they're the same
3 entity?
4 A I'm not sure how to answer that question, because I don't
5 think I hundred percent understand it.
6 Q Okay. So here's my question. Robertson and a lot of
7 people got served notices of trustee sale by LSI Title Agency,
8 Inc. But LSI Agency is doing business as LSI Title Agency,
9 Inc.
10 So we wouldn't know by the use of that name who was
11 actually sending out the notice of foreclosure; would that be
12 correct?
13 MR. TALEVICH: Object to the form --
14 THE WITNESS: Yes --
15 MR. TALEVICH: Object to the scope of the testimony.
17 MR. STAFNE: And I take it the answer did get
18 recorded?
19 THE COURT: No --
20 MR. STAFNE: Okay. I think she --
21 THE COURT: I'm sorry, yes. The witness answered
22 "yes." There was an objection. I sustained the objection. So
23 the answer is not --
24 MR. STAFNE: I understand. You're not going to
25 consider it. I just wanted it on the record.

82
1 BY MR. STAFNE
2 Q And I'm going to ask you to go to Question Number 1 on
3 this form, "Has the business entity or any owner, partner,
4 officer or director of the business entity, or member or
5 manager of a limited liability company, ever been convicted of,
6 or is in [sic] the business entity or any owner, partner,
7 officer or director, member or manager currently charged with
8 committing a crime, had a judgment withheld or deferred, or are
9 currently charged with committing a crime?"
10 And what is that answer?
11 MR. TALEVICH: Objection. Relevance.
13 MR. STAFNE: Can we make an offer of proof that the
14 answer is "yes," Your Honor?
15 MR. TALEVICH: It's also in evidence, so -- it's one
16 of my exhibits, and it's been admitted.
17 MR. STAFNE: Your Honor, as I understand it, you're
18 not interested particularly in whether or not they had offices
19 in Washington state, so --
20 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Stafne, it's not a matter of my
21 personal preference; all right? I'm trying to understand why
22 it makes a difference.
23 MR. STAFNE: Okay.
24 THE COURT: You know, I'm not trying to prejudge your
25 situation, but I'm still mystified.

83
1 BY MR. STAFNE
2 Q Okay. I'd like you to go to Exhibit 208. And there's
3 writing on that exhibit.
4 Do you see the writing?
5 A I do.
6 Q Did you write that?
7 A No, I did not.
8 Q Do you know who did?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And who was it?
11 A Monica Solberg.
12 Q Okay. And at the bottom, would you read what she has
13 written?
14 A "Address change done online from Vancouver to Bellevue.
15 No branches being added. Only has one location. See above."
16 Q Okay. And what was Monica's job? What were Monica's job
17 duties?
18 A Monica, as I said, is a licensing technician. She
19 processes a lot of different applications, but she specializes
20 in business entity applications.
21 Q Okay. And the last exhibit that was sent to you is a
22 series of e-mails.
23 Do you have those in front of you?
24 A Series of e-mails?
25 Q Yes. If you look at the top, they would say

84
1 Document 26-4, Page 73 of 86, 74 of 86, and 75 of 86.
2 A Yes, I do have those.
3 Q And 76.
4 Could you tell us what these e-mails involve?
5 MR. TALEVICH: And I'm sorry, Your Honor. I don't
6 know where we are.
7 MR. STAFNE: Basically, I think what these e-mails
8 involve --
9 MR. TALEVICH: Which exhibit number?
10 MR. STAFNE: This would be actually in the exhibits
11 that we have -- okay. So let's forget about the exhibit for a
12 moment.
13 BY MR. STAFNE
14 Q Can you tell me when LSI Title Agency, Inc. ceased to be a
15 resident insurance licensee in Washington state?
16 A That would have come August 13, 2012.
17 Q Okay. And after that time, they would have only been
18 operating as a non-resident licensee?
20 Q Okay. And are there rules with regard to which type of
21 licensee can send out foreclosure notices and participate in
22 foreclosures?
25 MR. TALEVICH: And I would hope for five minutes of

85
1 cross with this witness. And I know the Court needs to leave
2 at 11:30 sharp.
3 MR. STAFNE: Your Honor, I'm not sure I'm done, but
4 I'm happy to give him the five-minute cross.
5 THE COURT: Well, it's obvious we're not going to get
6 done today, so -- and I have sentencings this afternoon. I
7 only blocked off the morning for this. So we're going to have
8 to continue the matter until next Monday, at 9:00.
9 MR. STAFNE: I'm not sure I'm available.
10 MR. ROBERTSON: I'm not available.
11 MR. STAFNE: Oh, you're in the hospital?
12 MR. ROBERTSON: No. I'm up in Central Oregon. I've
13 got guests.
14 THE COURT: Well, when we set this up, you indicated
15 that it was going to be, you know, two-and-a-half hours.
16 MR. STAFNE: Well, I indicated I thought it would be
17 more, Your Honor, but I understand, and --
18 THE COURT: So Tuesday, 9:00.
19 MR. STAFNE: Perhaps one way of doing it is, Duncan
20 could submit a -- I mean, we're willing to work with the Court.
21 Perhaps he could just submit a declaration. You've had a
22 chance to evaluate his demeanor.
23 I mean, let's deal with this now, if he wants his time.
24 I've got a few more questions. But I certainly want Your Honor
25 to have every opportunity to allow --

86
1 THE COURT: Well, how many more witnesses do you
2 have, Mr. Stafne?
3 MR. STAFNE: Just Duncan. Well, I believe it is just
4 Duncan.
5 THE COURT: All right. Well, then let's -- you said
6 you had two more questions here. Ask them, please.
7 MR. STAFNE: I don't know that I said I had two more
8 questions.
9 BY MR. STAFNE
10 Q Okay. Do you recall that Mr. Robertson had problems
11 serving LSI Title Agency, Incorporated?
14 MR. STAFNE: Okay. I would make an offer of proof
15 that he was unable to serve them; because although the law
16 allows service of process on insurance companies for
17 non-resident companies, he was not allowed to serve them
18 because they claim to be a resident.
19 THE COURT: Well, Mr. Stafne, the issue is, does she
20 know what Mr. Robertson's problems were? And I can't imagine
21 that she does, except through hearsay, so the objection is
22 sustained.
23 So pose another question, please.
24 BY MR. STAFNE
25 Q What, if any, investigation did you do to determine

87
PENN - Cross (by Mr. Talevich)
1 whether the Office of the Insurance Commissioner could accept
2 service of process on behalf of LSI Title Services, Inc., in
3 Mr. Robertson's case?
6 MR. STAFNE: Okay. Just make an offer of proof that
7 it prevented him from timely servicing this entity.
8 And I -- with that, I will allow Pete to ask his
9 questions.
10 MR. TALEVICH: Cut me off, of course, but I believe I
11 should be able to get this done.
12 CROSS EXAMINATION
13 BY MR. TALEVICH
14 Q Ms. Penn, my name is Pete Talevich, from K&L Gates. I'm
15 counsel to LSI Title Agency, Inc.
16 In this case, a couple of years ago, you submitted a
17 declaration stating that the official records of the OIC showed
18 that LSI Title Agency, Inc.'s principal place of business was
19 in Bellevue, Washington; is that correct?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Can you explain to the Court what you meant by the term
22 "principal place of business"?
23 A It was the address of record we had for their business
24 address.
25 Q Is the specific term, "principal place of business," a

88
1 term that's actually used by OIC in the licensing context?
2 A No.
3 Q When you used the term "principal place of business," you
4 meant business address in the OIC's file; is that correct?
6 Q And principal place of business, as you used the term,
7 does not refer to the national headquarters of the licensee; is
8 that correct?
10 Q It's fair to say that for a resident licensee, "business
11 address" refers to its primary physical address within the
12 state of Washington?
13 A Correct.
14 Q You've never personally communicated with anyone from LSI
15 Title Agency, Inc.; isn't that correct?
16 A Correct.
17 Q And so it's fair to say that your understanding of
18 anything that LSI Title Agency, Inc. represented to the
19 Insurance Commissioner comes from reviewing the Insurance
20 Commissioner's file; is that correct?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And when you used the term "principal place of business"
23 earlier in this case, you weren't referring to it in the manner
24 that defines the jurisdiction of a federal court; is that
25 correct?
89
1 MR. STAFNE: Object. Calls for a legal conclusion.
2 THE COURT: Overruled.
3 BY MR. TALEVICH
4 Q When you used the term "principal place of business," you
5 weren't referring to it in the manner that defines the
6 jurisdiction of a federal court; isn't that correct?
7 A Correct.
8 Q And in your declaration that you submitted to the Court,
9 you didn't actually select the term "principal place of
10 business" yourself. Mr. Robertson selected that term; is that
11 correct?
12 A I don't recall.
13 Q Do you recall that Mr. Robertson sent you an e-mail, ghost
14 writing "principal place of business," and that you sent it
15 back to him?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And Mr. Robertson himself drafted the declaration that
18 contained the term "principal place of business," and you,
19 then, signed it; is that correct?
20 A The declaration I signed was originally drafted by
21 Mr. Robertson, but I did have to make changes before I signed
22 it.
23 Q But he picked the term "principal place of business" on
24 that declaration; isn't that correct?
25 A Yes.
90
PENN - Redirect (by Mr. Stafne)
1 MR. TALEVICH: Nothing further.
2 THE COURT: Anything further?
3 MR. STAFNE: Yes. But do we have time?
4 THE COURT: We don't -- you know, if you've got one
5 minute.
6 Are you intending to redirect?
7 MR. STAFNE: Yes, but just a little bit.
8 Should I try to do it now?
9 THE COURT: Let's ask a question, please.
10 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
11 BY MR. STAFNE
12 Q What is your understanding of the term "principal place of
13 business" for -- when you used it in your declaration?
14 A That it was the address of record that we had on file for
15 the business entity.
16 Q Okay. And when you are dealing with resident insurance
17 companies, what is the purpose of having a resident record on
18 file for?
19 MR. TALEVICH: Objection. Beyond the scope of cross.
21 We need to stop. You can call the witness back at another
22 time when we set up additional testimony, if you wish.
23 I'm going to ask that the parties work with Ms. Miller for
24 a time to continue. We have time on Monday. We have time on
25 Tuesday; okay? But otherwise, this is as far as I can go

91
1 today.
2 MR. STAFNE: Is it possible that this can be done
3 telephonically if -- I know Mr. Robertson's not around. It's a
4 long drive for me. And these folks may well want to come. But
5 if we could do it telephonically, or by Skype, or by some other
6 visual means.
7 THE COURT: Those options are available, and that's
8 something you should talk with Ms. Miller, unless there's an
9 objection. But we have the ability to -- my IT department does
10 not like me to refer to it as "Skype." We don't do Skype.
11 MR. STAFNE: Okay. Whatever --
12 THE COURT: But videoconferencing is what we have
13 available. And if you would like to do that, we can make those
14 arrangements, as well.
15 MR. STAFNE: Well, I want to do whatever I can to
16 help you be able to hear it as soon as possible and make a
17 decision.
18 THE COURT: All right. Then please work with
19 Ms. Miller on that, so that we can accommodate everybody.
20 MR. STAFNE: All right. Thank you.
21 THE COURT: Thank you. We'll be at recess.
22 (Adjourned)
23 ////
24 ////
25 ////
92
1 (End of requested transcript)
2 * * *
3 I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from
4 the record of proceedings in the above matter.
6 Date: 8/5/16 /s/Andrea Ramirez
8 Signature of Court Reporter
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Chase Simionidis Depo PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Chase Simionidis Depo PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

1

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

10 VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

14 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: SCOTT E. STAFNE

17 FOR DEFENDANT GMAC: WILLIAM G. FIG

20 FOR DEFENDANT CHASE: FRED B. BURNSIDE

1 FOR DEFENDANT LSI: PETER ANTHONY TALEVICH

4 KARI L. VANDER STOEP

9 Andrea Ramirez, CRR, RPR

13 Reported by stenotype, transcribed by computer

3 Witness: JOHN SIMIONIDIS

5 Witness: MICHAEL THOMPSON

Robertson vs. GMAC, 6/10/16

1 THE COURT: This is the matter of Duncan

2 Robertson vs. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, Cause Number C12-2017.

3 Counsel, please make your appearances.

4 MR. STAFNE: Your Honor, my name is Scott Stafne, and

5 I represent Mr. Duncan Robertson.

6 THE COURT: Good morning.

7 MR. STAFNE: Good morning.

8 MR. FIG: William Fig, Your Honor, for Bank of New

9 York Mellon Trust Company.

10 MR. BURNSIDE: Fred Burnside, Your Honor, for

12 MS. VANDER STOEP: Kari Vander Stoep, with LSI Title

14 MR. TALEVICH: Good morning, Your Honor. Pete

15 Talevich, K&L Gates. I'm here with our witness, Al Verkuylen,

16 and our trial paralegal, Dennis Tessier.

17 THE COURT: Good morning.

18 Counsel, I've had an opportunity to review your materials

20 had an opportunity to review your deposition designations of

21 Michael Scott Thompson, the deposition designations of Albert

22 Verkuylen -- I don't know if that's -- Verkuylen; is that

24 THE WITNESS: Verkuylen.

25 THE COURT: Verkuylen, excuse me. And I also had an

Robertson vs. GMAC, 6/10/16

1 opportunity to review the designations of Gregory Plizga.

2 MR. ROBERTSON: Plizga, is it?

3 THE COURT: Plizga. The witnesses' names are almost

4 as confusing as the companies themselves' names.

5 All right. So I've had an opportunity to review that.

6 Showing removability is a burden that's on the defendants,

7 so they get to make the presentations first.

8 And I know, Mr. Burnside, in your materials, you were

9 requesting that you be excused and not have to be here.

10 Obviously, you're here. I decided that was not appropriate.

11 MR. BURNSIDE: Hope springs eternal, Your Honor.

12 THE COURT: All right. But one of the things that we

13 may want to do is take the companies in order. And if you're

14 done making your presentations, you may make a motion again to

15 be excused, if you're finished.

16 MR. BURNSIDE: Thank you.

17 THE COURT: Okay. All right.

18 MR. STAFNE: Your Honor?

19 THE COURT: Yes.

20 MR. STAFNE: Do I -- am I to conclude from that that

21 you have decided that Mr. Burnside will not be a witness in

22 Robertson's case in chief?

23 THE COURT: Well, I'm going to give you an

24 opportunity to tell me why.

25 MR. STAFNE: Okay. Sure.

Robertson vs. GMAC, 6/10/16

1 THE COURT: But at this point -- what I'm saying is,