3/12/2025 

On 2/11/2025 the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the remaining causes of action against Forstein  while considering filing a new complaint  against the Brokers, with or without Forstein for Anti-trust and/or other Causes of Action. The Brokers institutionalized frauds are best characterized in CACI 4109 (selling brokers intentional withholding of material facts from buyers) and CACI 4107 (a brokers intentional withholding of facts from their client) but that was just one of dozens of frauds by Brokers. Seller's Agent and Seller that we were seeking to remedy from the seller for, given he had paid $55,000 for their services that turned out to be unlawfully biased for him.     

1. By December, and after numerous rounds of discovery, the Defendant and his attorney made it clear they had no interest in filing cross complaints against the Brokers for destroying the contract consent process and destroying the sellers representation process. Furthermore, plaintiffs were still coming up empty on critical information from the seller which was or should have been with in his ability to provide. (emails related with his Agent, receipts or description of septic mainline servicing, other) . It became apparent Forstein would got to the ends of the earth before taking responsibility for his brokers actions, actions of those he hired, or his own actions. As a result,  plaintiffs needed to take new strategy for recovery, with several available to them. 

2.  By December, the method in which  Attorney Ken Gorman was using an  improperly formatted original complaint and an incomplete verified response to that  to frustrate the plaintiffs out of their own case, had been fully exposed and understood after months as well.   

3. Forstein had lost his job of 11 years, exacerbating concerns about any future financial recovery.  

After dismissal, what should have ended there with a request by Gorman for court costs did not end there, and that's exposed a far larger problem. 

To plaintiffs shock, Attorney Ken Gorman of Penrose Chun and Gorman, in Santa Cruz CA , filed a motion for $145,961.670 in Attorney Fees with no legal or factual basis. It was filed  in a manner that any young Attorney should recognize as insincere, much less one with 40 years experience. 

Gorman went financial head hunting,  he put his sites on us, and he said "be damned" to  the "American Rule" and CIV 1717(b)(2) in the process.    

1. The complaints we filed included only Torts related to fraud to induce the contract.  Torts are not supposed to be subject to Attorney Fee Shifting in California, per the American Rule .  Gorman ignored that. 

2. Even if a confused Judge were to mislabel our complaint as a Contract Dispute with no proper basis, the plaintiffs were protected by CIV 1717(b)(2) which states "voluntary dismissal" in contract disputes with a fee shifting clause does not result in a prevailing party status for fee shifting .  Gorman not only ignored the inclusion of the exact paragraph reference for that,  he factually misrepresented it to the court suggesting only causes of action dismissed without prejudice applied.   We had dismissed some CoA's with prejudice as a show of good faith and negotiation tactic to encourage the Seller to consider turning on his brokers. Gorman has attempted to use that improperly and without legal basis against us, knowing the true facts for our voluntary choice to do that.  

3. There were no other qualifying acts for punitive damages without other legal basis, which is a high bar to meet. It is one where case precedent is used to outline requirements.  No case precedents were provided.  

4. The Contract Gorman is relying on for fee shifting has at least three clauses that misrepresent and / or conceal lawful requirements for contracts, in clauses 14A, 14F and 10A7, all to his clients benefit, and the footer on page 10 states it is NOT warranted as legal for any given transaction by it's publisher, a non-legal entity. 

5. The three case precedents Gorman provided in support for his motion were all related to contract disputes where the contract consent process was NOT disputed  by either party, unlike this complaint, and thus his three legal authorities were irrelevant, but Gorman wanted the court to ignore that too. 

What makes Attorney Gorman feel this was okay? Should we allow 40 year attorneys to pursue fellow citizens for life destructive purposes in  a baseless manner? If not, what should be his penalty?