45 - lisa reply re motion to strike

7/29/2019 45 - Lisa Reply Re Motion to Strike

1/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

Iverson, Yoakum, Papiano & Hatch633 West Fifth Street, Suite 6400

Los Angeles, CA 90071TELEPHONE: 213.624.7444

Lisa J. Borodkin (CA Bar #196412)

[email protected]

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Quarles & Brady LLPFirm State Bar No. 00443100

Renaissance One, Two North Central Ave.

Phoenix, AZ 85004-2391TELEPHONE 602.229.5200

John S. Craiger (#021731)[email protected] E. Funkhouser III (#022449)[email protected]

Attorneys for DefendantLisa Jean Borodkin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, an Arizonalimited liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

LISA JEAN BORODKIN and JOHN DOEBORODKIN, husband and wife; RAMONDMOBREZ and ILIANA LLANERAS,husband and wife; DANIEL BLACKERTSand JANE DOE BLACKERTS, husbandand wife; ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE,LLC, a California limited liability company,DOES 1-10, inclusive

Defendants.

No. 2:11-CV-01426-PHX-GMS

DEFENDANT LISA JEAN

BORODKIN'S REPLY INFURTHER SUPPORT OF

MOTION UNDER

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE 12(f) TO STRIKE

PARAGRAPHS 2, 42, 44, 50 AND

51 OF THE VERIFIED

COMPLAINT

(Assigned to the Honorable

G. Murray Snow)

(Oral Argument Requested)

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 45 Filed 11/25/11 Page 1 of 12


2/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENTXcentric Ventures LLC (Xcentric) has stated that this is a civil action for

malicious prosecution, and malicious prosecution only.1 Xcentric concedes that this is

neither a perjury prosecution nor a California State Bar disciplinary proceeding. Yet

Xcentrics Response (Doc. 40) chronically confuses criminal law with civil law, and

mistakenly equates motions directed at the pleadings with motions on the merits. Nowhere

does Xcentric provide a reasoned basis for labeling the conduct in Paragraphs 2, 42, 44

50 and 51 of the Complaint with the inaccurate legal terms perjury, subornation of

perjury, and ethics violations.

Xcentric has not explained why Ms. Borodkins actions deserve the label ethics

violation in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, or how such an allegation is relevant to any

issue in its claim. According to the Complaint, Ms. Borodkin did nothing more than

correct the testimony of her client and continue litigating a claim. Xcentrics counsel did

the same thing. See Doc. 36 at 8:18-19.

Xcentric has not explained how the allegation in Paragraph 51 that Ms. Borodkin

knowingly suborned perjury (regarding incoming phone calls from Ripoff Report) is

relevant to any issue in this malicious prosecution case. Testimony about incoming calls

have no tendency to show that a RICO claim predicated on attempted extortion solely

through writing, see Doc. 36 at 10:20-11:2, was continued without probable cause.

Xcentric does not dispute that the alleged perjury pertained to an irrelevant issue

in the California Action. See Doc. 36 at 9:10-11:2. The Corporate Advocacy Program was

described in email, to Mobrez and others, and Xcentric does charge a $7,500 initial fee

1Xcentric states that the First and Second Causes of Action in the Complaint are both for

malicious prosecution. See Doc. 39 at 5:10-6:2; Doc. 40 at 3:25-26. Xcentric also takesthe position that the primary tort in the Third Cause of Action is malicious prosecution.See Doc. 39 at 12:1-5.



3/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

and a monthly fee to make negative listings on search engines into a positive along with

all the Reports on the Ripoff Report. See Asia Econ. Inst. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC,

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133370 at *20 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2010). Thus, Xcentric does not

dispute that the RICO claim in the California Action relied on written, not oral threats. See

Doc. 36 at 10:16-21. Xcentric fails to show how allegations of perjury regarding

telephone calls would tend to prove the lack of probable cause or malice element of its

claim.

Even if perjury or attorney ethics were at issue in this case (which they are not)

Xcentrics position is problematic. Xcentric does not dispute that it and its counsel have

unclean hands, having contributed to the confusion that led to the false testimony.

Not striking the allegations would deprive Ms. Borodkin of the protection of Rule

12(f). The allegations are harmful to her reputation. Not striking the allegations would

beget discovery disputes in the illogical, specious vein of Xcentrics Response here. The

prejudice to her is compounded by the Complaints use of group pleading, see Doc. 35 at

5:21-8:11, Doc. 44 at 4:16-6:21, and deliberate placement of Ms. Borodkin as the first

named defendant, even though she is named in the fewest claims.

Xcentric has articulated no prejudice it would suffer from striking these allegations

Everything Xcentric could possibly say it has said again, in its Response, using different

words. Compare Wailua Assocs. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 183 F.R.D. 550, 556 (D. Haw

1998). Accordingly, this motion should be granted, striking all of Paragraphs 2 and 42

and references to perjury in paragraphs 44, 50 and 51 of the Complaint.

II. Legal Argument

A. Xcentric Does Not Explain How Allegations of Criminal Conduct Are

Relevant to Any Issue in this Action.

Ostensibly, the Complaint, stripped to its essentials, alleges that details of Mobrezs

and Llaneras May 3, 2010 declarations and Mobrezs May 7, 2010 deposition testimony



4/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

regarding his 2009 telephone conversations with Magedson were false. See Compl. 33-

40, 43, Exs. C-D. The remainder of the substantive allegations concern Ms. Borodkin and

her co-counsel withdrawing the testimony in corrected declarations on May 20, 2010, see

id. 51, Exs. F-G, and alleging that Ms. Borodkin and her co-counsel suborned perjury

by including references to an incoming phone call from Ripoff Report in Mobrezs

corrected May 20, 2010 declaration, see id.51, Ex. F.

Xcentrics chief grievance against Ms. Borodkin seems to be that she and her co-

counsel did not comply with Xcentrics May 11, 2010 ultimatum to make their clients

dismiss the California Action (with an agreement to pay all Xcentrics fees), see Compl

Ex. E at 4, or withdraw from the case, based on Xcentrics counsels2 selective

interpretation of the California state bar rules, see Compl. 44-47, Ex. E at 2-3.3

Apparently dissatisfied with choice-of-law rulings and denial of its Rule 11 motions in

California, Xcentric has come to Arizona, hoping for better results.

Xcentric argues that the allegations of perjury, subornation of perjury and unethical

and illegal conduct in the Complaint are relevant to the elements of lack of probable

cause and malice of its claims for malicious prosecution. See Doc. 40 at 3:15-17, 24-4:2

But nowhere does Xcentric show how these loaded terms make any fact at issue in this

case more likely than not under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Xcentric argues that these

allegations are not gratuitous because it must allege some factual detail for its claims, see

Doc. 40 at 3:24-25, 4:3-8, then immediately puts the lie to that argument by describing the

2Xcentrics counsel is also a member of the California Bar.

3 Section II.C. of the May 11, 2010 letter sent by Xcentrics counsel, General Settlement

Points, expressly conditioned settlement on the furnishing of full, complete, and truthful

explanation of each and every third party who aided, solicited, and/or encouraged them to

make their false extortion claims in [the California Action]. This pattern is very similar

to the demand made of Ms. Borodkin in this case. Compare Compl. Ex. E at 4 with Doc.

25 at 2-3.



5/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

same conduct in other words, see Doc. 40 at 4:15-17, 4:22-24.

Ironically, Xcentric cites De Lamos v. Mastro, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108058 at

*8-9 (D. Ariz. Sept. 17, 2010)4

see Doc. 40 at 3:18-22, for the principle that matter is

immaterial if it has no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief. See Doc

40 at 18-22. The Court in De Lamos struck allegations of criminal conduct (even if true)

because they were irrelevant.De Lamos wasa fraud case arising out of the sale of a golf

center, in which the plaintiff included allegations of the defendants shared criminal

history and alleged ties to organized crime. See id. at *8. The plaintiff argued that this was

factual material that explained how the disputed transaction arose. See id. The court struck

the allegations, both as immaterial and impertinent under Rule 12(f) and as violating Rule

8(a)s short and plain pleading requirement. See id. at *8-9 (They do not provide any

meaningful insight into how the alleged fraud might have occurred, and are therefore not

necessary to support the claims.)

Begging the question, Xcentric argues, IfMr. Mobrez and Ms. Llaneras lied about

the material facts of their claims, then . . . they could have not had probable cause to

reasonably believe[] in the existence of the facts upon which the claim is based. See

Doc. 40. At 4:22-24 (emphasis added). But Xcentric has not shown that the facts allegedly

lied about are material.

Xcentric does not dispute that the racketeering claim in the California Action was

based on the Corporate Advocacy Program as a whole. See Compl. Ex. A at 62-65

Doc. 36 at 10:8-15, 10:20-11:2. Xcentric makes no attempt to discuss the Courts findings

in the California Action that the RICO claim predicated on attempted extortion relied onlyon written communications such as email, under California Penal Code 524. See Doc

4De Lamos was marked Not for Publication but was cited in Xcentrics Response. See

Doc. 40 at 3:18-22.



6/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

9:10-11:2;Asia Econ. Inst. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133370 at

*46 (C.D. Cal. July 19, 2010).5

Although the phone calls were immaterial to the California Action, Xcentric also

does not dispute its own unclean hands in contributing to the alleged perjury. See Doc

36 at 8:15-9:9. Magedson lied in his March and April declarations about having a 2009

phone conversation with Mobrez in which the latter threatened him. See Doc. 36 at

8:16-26. Xcentrics counsel discovered the lies on April 20, 2010,6see Doc. 36 at 8:21-26

but left his clients declarations uncorrected until May 11, 2010,7 see Doc. 36 at 8:18

Meanwhile, Xcentric elicited testimony from Mobrez on May 7, 2010 while Mobrez was

influenced by Magedsons false recollections. See Compl. 40. In Mobrezs corrected

declaration of May 20, 2010, Mobrez indicated that Magedsons detailed, yet fictitious

recollection of their phone calls contributed to his confus[ing] some of what was said in

my telephone conversations with what was written in the e-mail correspondence, see

Compl. 49-51, Ex. L at 2:27-3:1.

There are significant jurisdictional issues, too, arising from the fact that Xcentrics

sole theory of perjury depends on a combination of self-serving representations and

recordings for which an evidentiary foundation was never laid. See Asia Econ. Inst., 2010

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133370 at *41. Moreover, the Court in the California Action found the

recordings described in Compl. 41-43 inadmissible under California law, in any action

arising under diversity. See Asia Econ. Inst., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133370 at *34-35, fn.

12. Xcentric never appealed that ruling. Arguably, Xcentric is now precluded from

relitigating the admissibility of those recordings in any action arising under state law.

5Inadvertently mis-cited in the moving brief as 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13337.

6See AEI v. Xcentric, C.D. Cal No. 10-cv-1360 (Doc. 31) at 7 (May 11, 2010), available

at https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/doc1/031110147370.7See id.



7/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

Accordingly, allegations of perjury, and subornation of perjury in Paragraphs

2, 42, 44, 50 and 51 are not relevant and should be stricken,

B. Xcentric Does Not Show that Allegations that Ms. Borodkin CommittedEthics Violations Are Relevant to Any Issue in This Action.

Xcentric does not explain the relevance of the allegations that Ms. Borodkin

violated California Rules of Professional Conduct, see Compl. 2, and intentionally

suborned perjury, see Compl. 51. Rather, Xcentric argues:

[T]he allegations . . . that Ms. Borodkin and/or8Mr. Blackert suborned perjuryfrom [the Mobrez Defendants] and otherwise acted unethically and unlawfully

are directly relevant and material to the merits of this case. SeeDe Lamos vMastro, 2010 WL 3809936, *3 (D. Ariz. 2010).

See Doc. 40 at 3:15-19 (italics added). However, nowhere does Xcentric substantiate its

accusation that Ms. Borodkin violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct.

Even if it had a theory of how Ms. Borodkin violated the California Rules of

Professional Conduct, Xcentric does not explain how that would be probative of any

element of its Second Cause of Action against Ms. Borodkin, Wrongful Continuation of

Civil Proceedings (WCCP). See Compl. 75-84.9

Xcentric concedes that its claim for WCCP requires it to prove that each defendan

actedwithout probable cause and actedwith malice, see Doc. 40 at 4:3-5. But Xcentric

does not explain how vague allegations that Ms. Borodkin committed ethics violations

8Xcentrics vexatious use of and/or for an accusation as serious as professional

misconduct confirms the need for an order requiring Xcentric to replead in a more definite

statement, as requested by Ms. Borodkins motion under Rule 12(e). See Docs. 35, 44.9Xcentrics Response to the Motion for More Definite Statement indicates that it intends

to argue, under California law, that because one claim in the California Action was

continued without probable cause, then the entire action supports a malicious prosecution

claim. See Doc. 39 at 7:13-16 (citingSoukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th260, 293, 139 P.3d 30, 52, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 638, 664 (Cal. 2006)).



8/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

or suborned an irrelevant fact from Mobrez would tend to prove that Ms. Borodkin

continued any claim in the California Action without probable cause or with malice.

Xcentric seems to suggest that it is Ms. Borodkins burden to prove her innocence:

Ms. Borodkin [sic] attempting to obtain what amounts to a summary dispositionof the merits of Xcentrics allegations without a hearing and without providingthe Court with any evidence other than her own counsels arguments as to herinnocence. This effort is both procedurally inappropriate and factuallyunwarranted. . . Carroll v. Kalar, 112 Ariz. 595, 599, 545 P.2d 411, 415 (1976).

See Doc. 40 at 3:9-14.

Similarly, Xcentric argues, in a conclusory manner:

The allegations of unethical, criminal, and tortious conduct by Ms. Borodkin andher co-defendants relate directly to the merits of Xcentrics claims [sic] this case. . striking these allegations at the pre-Answer stage would be tantamount to grantingsummary judgment in favor of Defendants.

See Doc. 40 at 5:23-25.

These arguments and the citation to Carroll v. Kalar misunderstand the function of a

Rule 12(f) motion to strike. The function of a Rule 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the

expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by

dispensing with those issues prior to trial. See Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618

F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010); Torres v. Goddard, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35291 at *2 (D.

Ariz. Apr. 22, 2008). It is not to shift the burden to defendants to disprove the merits of

irrelevant allegations.

Xcentric draws a false analogy to this civil common law claim and the civil RICO

claim in the California Action:

Ms. Borodkin did not hesitate to repeatedly accuse Xcentric of serious criminalconduct including extortion, attempted extortion, and wire fraud. Although thoseallegations against Xcentric were factually false, the alleged criminal conduct was amaterial part of the claims in that case.

See Doc. 40 at 5:16-20. The analogy is specious.



9/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

The RICO claims in the California Action were civil causes of action that require, as

an element, proof of the elements of certain statutorily enumerated violations. This case

by contrast, is a malicious prosecution action arising under common law. Xcentricconcedes that malicious prosecution does not require, as an element, proof of the elements

of any criminal or administrative violation. See Doc. 40 at 3:26-4:2.

Moreover, Xcentric falsely claims that it chose not to make motions to strike in the

California Action. See Doc. 5 at 20-22 (rather than ask the court to strike the claims

Xcentrics remedy was simply to prove that the allegations were groundless). In fact

Xcentric made three motions to strike pleadings in the California Action, all unsuccessful

On March 22, 2010, Xcentric made a special motion to strike the Complaint under

Californias Anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure 425.16.10 On August 23

2010, Xcentric made a motion under Rule 12(f) to strike matter from two motion-related

documents.11 On September 27, 2010, Xcentric made a special motion to strike the

Amended Complaint under Californias Anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure

425.16.12None were granted.

C. Ms. Borodkin Would Be Prejudiced if the References to Alleged

Criminal Conduct and Ethics Violations Were Not Stricken.

Xcentric generally does not discuss the authorities cited in the motion, except for

Nault. Ironically, the cases cited by Xcentric were those in which courts granted motions

to strike, or illustrate exactly the distinctions that make this a case for doing so.

Xcentric cites XY Skin Care & Cosmetics, LLC v. Hugo Boss United States, Inc.

10See AEI v. Xcentric, C.D. Cal No. 10-cv-1360 (Doc. 9) (March 22, 2010), available at

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/doc1/03119842894.11

See AEI v. Xcentric, C.D. Cal No. 10-cv-1360 (Doc. 124) (August 23, 2010), available

at https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/doc1/031110747694.12

See AEI v. Xcentric, C.D. Cal No. 10-cv-1360 (Doc. 154) (Sept. 27, 2010), available at

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/doc1/031110952801.



10/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69866 (D. Ariz. Aug. 4, 2009) for the general rule that motions to

strike should be denied if there is any doubt. See Doc. 40 at 6:1-2. The Court inXY Skin

Care granted the motion to strike before it. See id. at *7. According toXY Skin, the chief

requirement of motions under Rule 12(f) is that the movant needs to show prejudice. See

id. at *5-6.

Prejudice is easily shown here. First, Ms. Borodkin is prejudiced by having

allegations of ethics violations, perjury, and subornation of perjury, appear on the

front page of the Complaint -- even ahead of federal subject matter jurisdiction. See

Compl. 2. They are gratuitous because the Complaint never refers to them again. They

are prejudicial because they reflect negatively on Ms. Borodkins professional reputation.

Second, the group nature of the allegations is prejudicial as well. See Compl. 2

51. They do not distinguish between Ms. Borodkins acts and those of other parties, as

more fully briefed in the Motion for More Definite Statement. See Docs. 35, 44.

Third, the Complaint is prejudicial to Ms. Borodkin by design. On August 30,

2011, Xcentrics counsel advised Ms. Borodkin, that her name appears first in the caption

intentionally,13 even though she is only named in the Second and Third Causes of Action

Even if Ms. Borodkin prevails early, her name will forever be associated with this case.

Ms. Borodkin has already submitted proof that Magedson desires this action to be a long

and drawn out legal battle and will only make you look worse than you already do unless

she provides damaging information about an unrelated third party. See Doc. 25 at 2-3.

Fourth, the allegations are designed to justify conducting harassing, burdensome

discovery on immaterial issues. Xcentric argues, illogically, that this motion to strikeamounts to a summary disposition of the merits of Xcentrics allegations without a

hearing and without providing the Court any evidence as to her own counsels arguments

13A copy of the email can be provided to the Court upon request.



11/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

as to her innocence. See Doc. 40 at 3:9-12.

This argument misunderstands the role of pleadings. Allegations do not give

Xcentric license to hound a defendant until she proves her innocence. It is Xcentrics

burden to articulate an intelligible claim, and show a plausible entitlement to relief before

it can take any discovery. SeeBell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (U.S. 2007)

So far, Xcentric has failed to do so.

Xcentric is not entitled to take discovery on its allegations of perjury and ethics

violations. See, e.g., De Lamos v. Mastro, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108058 at *8-9 (D

Ariz. Sept. 17, 2010). Accordingly, they should be stricken.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Borodkin respectfully requests that this Court grant

this motion under Rule 12(f) striking all of Paragraphs 2 and 42, and references to

perjury in paragraphs 44, 50 and 51 of the Complaint.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 25th day of November, 2011.

IVERSON, YOAKUM, PAPIANO & HATCH633 West 5th Street, 64th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071

By /s/ Lisa J. BorodkinLisa J. Borodkin

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

QUARLES & BRADY LLPRenaissance One, Two North Central AvenuePhoenix, AZ 85004-2391

John S. CraigerDavid E. Funkhouser III

Attorneys for Lisa Jean Borodkin



12/12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2223

24

25

26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 25, 2011, I electronically transmitted the

attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrant:

David S. Gingras, Esq. ([email protected])Attorneys for Plaintiff

Hartwell Virginia Harris ([email protected])Attorney for Defendants Mobrez, Llaneras and AsiaEconomic Institute LLC

/s/ Lisa J. Borodkin


45 - lisa reply re motion to strike

Documents