Donna Dymally has been litigating the case reprinted in the above link for some time now. That blog posting has now emerged as a key issue in her efforts to settle the lawsuit. Her initial settlement proposal was for payment of a particular amount of money but expressly ruling out entering into any confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement. The lawyer representing Dr. Sanjay Kishore Udani, Medicus Research LLC, and Patrick Briones countered with an offer to pay what Dymally asked for, but insisted on a confidentiality agreement and a demand that Dymally direct me to take down my blog posting. As an “oh by the way,” this isn’t the first time that somebody involved in litigation tried to get my client to have me restrict my own First Amendment right to free speech – Neville Johnson and Gregory Yates have tried to pull that stunt too because they don’t have any grounds to sue me over my postings.
In any event, some aspects of Attorney Yosef A. Mahmood’s (of Blank & Rome LLP) litigation efforts are kind of comical. Here are some gems excerpted from Dymally response to his correspondence:
Your Answer to the Complaint, for an entirely subjective reason, is laughable. Literally, laughable. I can understand why you did not want me to see it because you must be embarrassed that your name appears on a document in which somebody in your firm crossed out “Superior” court and hand wrote in the non-existent “Municipal” court. Get a clue: the last Municipal Court in California ceased to exist in 2001. There is no such thing.
Bottom line, such bizarre clerical behavior does not inspire confidence.
Now, at least Mr. Mahmood’s bar record is clean; having been a lawyer for only a little more than a year, he hasn’t had enough time to get into trouble…unlike the first attorney Dr. Udani and Medicus Research had dealing with Dymally in her lawsuit. That attorney, David Scott Silber, is on probation with the State Bar. At the bottom of this blog we’ll reprint excerpts from the 13 page California State Bar document which explains why, and it’s a doozy!
Anyway, in the wake of Blank & Rome’s attempts to stifle my First Amendment blogging about their client, I got suspicious and did some research as to why they’re trying to put out a fire that is barely sparking….know the old saying about where there’s smoke there’s fire? Here’s some of what I found in the Los Angeles Superior Court alone:
Case No. BC 555822, HEGHINE MSRYAN, an individual; and LUSINE MSRYAN, an individual vs. Medicus Research LLC, Alain Giraud, et al
Plaintiffs were subjected to sexual and national origin harassment during their employment with Defendants. Defendant MEDICUS’ Chief Operating Oficer (GIRAUD) repeatedly sexually harassed Plaintiffs and other female co-workers during their employment at MEDICUS. Defendant GIRAUD also made repeated negative comments about Plaintiffs’ national origin as well as the race and national origin of other employees. Defendant GIRAUD would regularly make sexual propositions and obscene sexual comments to Plaintiffs and other female employees. Defendant GIRAUD even showed pornography and touched his subordinates on several occasions against their will. Plaintiffs made it very clear that this conduct was unwelcome, but the conduct continued unabated.
During the times pertinent to this Complaint, Defendants intentionally and repeatedly refused to pay Plaintiffs and other employees on a timely basis. Further, on multiple occasions Plaintiffs were given checks for their wages that bounced.
Case No. BC 571553, Francesca Gallard (class action) v Medicus Research LLC, et al
This is a class action under various state consumer protection laws against Medicus dba Staywell and Dr. Udani for false advertising, fraud and deceit in failing to pay research subjects for their participation.
Case No. BC 576691, Zillroo LLC vs MEDICUS INDUSTRIES, INC:, a Delaware Corporation; MEDICUM RESEARCH, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; SYSTEMEDICUS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; STAYWELL SITE HOLDINGS, INC., a California Corporation; MEDICUS TELECOM; INC., a California Corporation; JAY UDANI, an individual
According to this lawsuit, Zillroo was induced by Dr. Udani to invest in his enterprises and got ripped off. Zillroo is suing for Fraud and other causes of action.
As to David Scott Silber:
ACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of the specified violations.
1. On July 11,2011, the State Bar Court filed and served upon Respondent a Stipulation re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition and Order Approving in State Bar Court Case Nos. 10-O-00366 and 10-0-03134 (“Stipulation”).
2. On November 9, 2011, the California Supreme Court filed an Order No. S196240 (State Bar Court Case Nos. 10-O-00366 and 10-0-03134) that Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, that execution of suspension be stayed and that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years, and that he be subject to the conditions of probation as recommended by the Hearing Department of the State Bar Court in its Stipulation filed on July 11,2011.
a. As a condition of probation, Respondent was ordered to comply with the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct and to report such compliance to the Office of Probation under penalty of perjury on or before January 10, April 10, July 10, and October 10 of every year during the period of probation (“quarterly reports”). Respondent did not comply, as follows:
Due Filed Comments
b. As a condition of probation, Respondent was ordered to, within one year of the effective date of his discipline–by December 9, 2012, provide satisfactory proof of attendance at a session of State Bar Ethics School, and passage of the test given at the end of that session. Respondent attended Ethics School late on December 13, 2012, and provided proof January 10, 2013.
c. As a condition of probation, Respondent was ordered to, within three months of the effective date of his discipline—by March 9, 2012, develop a law office management organization plan (“LOMP”) which was to be approved by the Office of Probation. Respondent submitted a LOMP on March 9, 2012, but it was rejected for numerous deficiencies as set forth in a letter mailed to Respondent on March 15, 2012. On
July 12, 2012, Respondent submitted an amended LOMP, which was rejected for several deficiencies as set forth in a letter mailed to Respondent on July 13, 2012. Respondent’s second amended LOMP submitted January 10, 2013 was approved.
d. As a condition of probation, Respondent was to obtain psychiatric or psychological help/treatment from a duly licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker at Respondent’s expense a minimum of four times per month and furnish evidence of such with each quarterly report. Help/treatment was to commence immediately, and in any event, no later than thirty days after the effective date of discipline–by January 8, 2012. Respondent has not complied, as follows:
Report Due Comments
4/10/12 Report was submitted by a “MA”, not a licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or
clinical social worker; report was not filed 7/10/12 Report was submitted by a “MA”, not a licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker; report was not filed
10/10/12 Report was submitted by a “MA”, not a licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or
clinical social worker; report was not filed 1/10/13 Report was submitted by a “MA”, not a licensed psychiatrist, psychologist, or clinical social worker; report was not filed
4/10/13 Although Respondent did not attend any counseling in January or February, a report filed with the Office of Probation late on November 26, 2013 confirmed 2 counseling sessions during March 7/10/13 Although Respondent affirms he had 4 sessions in May and 4 in June 2013, but that his counselor was ill and could not send a report, the Office of Probation was unable to confirm that the counselor was a psychiatrist, psychologist, or licensed clinical social worker
Although Respondent affirms he had 4 session in each July, August, and September
2013, but that his counselor was ill and could not send a report, the Office of
Probation was unable to confirm that the counselor was a psychiatrist, psychologist,
or licensed clinical social worker
12/9/13 Respondent did not receive counseling in October. Respondent had 2 sessions in
November and 1 in December. Resports were filed late as of December 16
3. On December 21, 2011, the Office of Probation mailed a reminder letter to Respondent at his membership records address outlining the terms and condition of his probation. Respondent received the letter.
4. On January 12, 2012, the Office of Probation conducted the required meeting with Respondent, reviewing all of Respondent’s conditions and deadlines.
Legal Conclusion: By failing to (1) timely file quarterly reports, as set forth above in paragraph 2 a.; (2) timely complete Ethics School, as set forth above in paragraph 2 b.; (3) timely submit a satisfactory LOMP, as set forth in above in paragraph 2. c; and (4) obtain psychiatric or psychological help/treatment as set forth above in paragraph 2. d., Respondent willfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6068(k).