Glendon W. Miskel, Esq. State Bar # 069794
JOHNSON & MISKEL .r .
465 California Street, Suite 626
I/ San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415} 391-1320
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SPENCE, MOSLEY, STEVENSON, LEWIS & MILLER.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ALEXANDER "SKIP" SPENCE by ADAM )
SPENCE, his Guardian Ad Litem; JAMES)
ROBERT MOSLEY by MARGARET M.
MOSLEY, his Guardian Ad Litem; DONALD
J. STEVENSON; PETER LEWIS; and
JERRY A. MILLER,Plaintiffs,

N0.957731, No.614321 Sept 29th,1995

[P.Rep(}SEC] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SET
ASIDE; DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

MATTHEW KATZ, and DOES 1 though 40, D.ate: Sept. 29, 1995
Inclusive, DEFENDANTS

Time: 9:30 a.m.
~ Dept: 10
Trial Date: October 30, 1995

On September 18, 1995, this Court ordered that Plaintiffs' Motion to Set Aside
would be treated as a Motion for Summary Judgment and be heard with Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment on September 29, 1995 at 9:30 a.m. in this Department 10
of the Superior Court.
Accordingly, on September 29, 1995, the Motion of Defendant Matthew Katz
{"KATZ"} for summary judgment and the Motion of Plaintiffs Alexander "Skip" Spence
{"SPENCE"}, Robert Mosley {"MOSLEY"}, Donald J. Stevenson {"STEVENSON"}, Peter
Lewis {"LEWIS"} and Jerry A. Miller ("MILLER") to set aside void and fraudulent settlement
agreement came on for hearing before this Court in Department 10, the Honorable DavidA. Garcia, presiding. Glendon W. Miskel of Johnson & Miskel appeared on behalf of
Plaintiffs; Daniel Kristensen appeared for Defendant Matthew Katz.
After full consideration of the evidence, the separate statements of each party, the
authorities submitted by counsel and counsel's oral argument, the Court finds as follows:
A. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was made on the grounds that the
action has no merit, there are not triable issues as to any material fact and that Defendant
Matthew Katz is entitled to judgment as a matter of law due to inexcusable neglect and
delay in bringing this action calling for the application of the doctrine of laches in this case.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was supported by evidence in the form of the
Declaration of Matthew Katz, the facts alleged in the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs and the
testimony in the videotaped deposition of David Rubinson.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied on the grounds that there are
genuine triable issues of material fact. Those triable issues of material fact are evidenced
by the following contentions made by Plaintiffs and the evidence offered by Plaintiffs in
support of those contentions:
1. Plaintiffs were not informed of the proceedings in 1973 that concluded in the
August 1973 Stipulated Settlement and Order Thereon. This contention is supported by
the following evidence which was submitted by Plaintiffs in their Opposition to KA TZ'
Motion for Summary Judgment: Exhibit 20, Declaration of LEWIS; Exhibit 21, Declaration
of STEVENSON; Exhibit 22, Declaration of MILLER.
2. The attorney who claimed to be representing Plaintiffs in 1973 was actually
representing the interests of their former manager and producer. This contention is
supported by the following evidence which was submitted by Plaintiffs in their Opposition
to KA TZ' Motion for Summary Judgment: Attorney Nicholas Clainos ("CLAINOS-) was
deposed on November 9, 1994. His testimony confirmed the following facts:
(a) CLAINOS began working as a self-employed attorney in 1972, the
year he started work on this case. CLAINOS Depo. p. 13, I. 11.
(b) David Rubinson ("RUBINSON") contacted him regarding the work to
be done in this case. CLAINOS Depo. p. 17, I. 24-25; p. 18, I. 1-2.
(c) ClAINOS worked out of RUBINSON's office and had a desk there.
CLAINOS Depo. p. 67, I. 14-16.
(d) CLAINOS was performing other legal services for RUBINSON in 1973.
CLAINOS Depo. p. 51, I. 15.
(e) ClAINOS had no written fee or legal services agreement with the
members of Moby Grape. ClAINOS Depo. p. 21, I. 8.
(f) ClAINOS sent his legal services bills to RUBINSON, not to the
bandmembers. CLAINOS Depo. p. 31, 1.10-13.
(g) All of CLAINOS' legal billings relating to Moby Grape were paid by I
RUBINSON. CLAINOS Depo. p. 31, 1.14.
(h) ClAINOS had difficulty locating and communicating with the band.
CLAINOS Depo. p. 38, I. 1-18.
(I) CLAINOS claimed a total of two meetings with the band. CLAINOS
Depo. p. 42, I. 18. Both meetings were arranged by RUBINSON. CLAINOS Depo. p. 43,
1. 3.
(j) The members of Moby Grape were not present at the settlement
conference. CLAINOS Depo. p. 46, I. 15-17.
(k) CLAINOS knew that the band members were represented by Owen
Sloane, Esq. and Richard Rosenberg, Esq. ClAINOS Depo. P. 26, 1. 1-13.
(1) CLAINOS never discussed the lawsuit with Owen Sloane, Esq. and
Richard Rosenberg, Esq., the attorneys who regularly represented the bandmembers.
CLAINOS Depo. p. 50, ,. 25; p. 51, I. 1-3; p. 56, I. 22; p. 57, I. 1.
(m) ClAINOS did discuss the settlement with RUBINSON. CLAINOS
Depo. p. 51, 1.5-10.
3. All of the proceeds of the 1973 settlement were diverted to the former
manager/producer, RUBINSON, and his attorneys so that Plaintiffs received nothing byway of settlement. This contention is supported by the following evidence which was
submitted by Plaintiffs in their Opposition to KA TZ' Motion for Summary Judgment:
(a) CLAINOS recalled that the settlement involved a considerable amount
of money. CLAINOS Depo. p. 61, I. 21.
(b) CLAINOS never spoke with any of the Moby Grape bandmembers
after the August 1973 settlement. CLAINOS Depo. p. 69, I. 3-5.
(c) CLAINOS had personal knowledge that money went to RUBINSON.
CLAINOS Depo. p. 34, 1.7-16. He didn't have anything to do with that. CLAINOS Depo.
p. 62, I. 16-20.
Exhibit 24 which is a summary of the distribution to RUBINSON of settlement
proceeds and Exhibit 12 which is a summary of the settlement money collected.
4. The attorney who executed the August 28, 1973 Stipulated Settlement did
! so without the knowledge or permission of Plaintiffs rendering that agreement void contrary
to his representations to the Court at the time of settlement. This contention is supported
by the following evidence which was submitted by Plaintiffs In their Opposition to KA TZ'
Motion for Summary Judgment:
(a) CLAINOS could not recall if all the bandmembers were at either of the
two meetings. CLAINOS Depo. p. 20,1.25; p. 21, I. 1-4; p. 41, 1. 19-22.
(b) CLAINOS probably didn't speak to the band members between the
time the settlement was reached and the time the settlement document was executed.
CLAINOS Depo. p. 49,1.21-5; p. 50, I. 1-4.
(c) CLAINOS claimed the second meeting was within a matter of months
of settlement -but couldn't say if it was within weeks or days. CLAINOS Depo. p. 49,
1.7-13.
(d) CLAINOS claimed to have met with SPENCE finding him "very well-
mannered and articulate" after a thirty minute conversation. CLAINOS Depo. p. 38, 1.22-
23; p. 39, 1.2-11.
(e) CLAINOS claimed to have met with the person who ran the facility
where SPENCE was staying and confirmed that SPENCE was not "mentally incompetent."
CLAINOS Depo. p. 39, I. 13-24.
Exhibit 17, Dr. Smolowe Report on Spence; Exhibit 18, Mosley Evaluation
by V.A.; Exhibit 19, Dr. Smolowe Report on Mosley.
5. Plaintiffs SPENCE and MOSLEY were never parties to the Action which was
settled on August 28, 1973. This contention is supported by the following evidence which
was submitted by Plaintiffs in their Opposition to KATZ' Motion for Summary Judgment:
Exhibit 11 Petition to Determine Controversy; Exhibit 3, Labor Commissioner's Award;
Exhibit 4, KATZ Notice of Appeal (note caption excluding SPENCE & MOSLEY as parties);
Exhibit 16, General Appearance day of settlement.
6. The August 1973 Settlement was one-sided, unfair and unreasonable to
Plaintiffs. This contention is supported by the following evidence which was submitted by
Plaintiffs in their Opposition to KA TZ' Motion for Summary Judgment: Declaration of
expert witness Robert E. Gordon, Esq., 11 13, 1.7-11.
7. Plaintiffs SPENCE and MOSLEY were both mentally incompetent and
I therefore psyd1iatrically and legally disabled in August of 1973 and incapable of entering
into any legally binding agreements on their own. This contention is supported by the
following evidence which was submitted by Plaintiffs in their Opposition to KA TZ' Motion
for Summary Judgment: Exhibit 17, Dr. Smolowe Report on SPENCE; Exhibit 18,
MOSLEY Evaluation by V.A.; Exhibit 19, Dr. Smolowe report on Mosley. Exhibit 25, V.A.
Report on Mosley six days before the settlement.
8. The attorneys who did represent these Plaintiffs in 1973 were never advised
of the August 28, 1973 Stipulated Settlement. This contention is supported by the
following evidence which was submitted by Plaintiffs in their Opposition to KA TZ' Motion
for Summary Judgment: Exhibit 31, Declaration of Owen Sloane, Esq.
RUBINSON was deposed on January 25, 1995. His testimony confirmed that
following facts:
(a) RUBINSON knew that Owen Sloane, Esq. and Richard Rosenberg,
Esq. were the attorneys for Plaintiffs LEWIS and MOSLEY. RUBINSON Depo p. 40, 1.4-
8. I
(b) RUBINSON had no recollection of ever informing Owen Sloane, Esq.
of the settlement agreement or any knowledge or recollection of CLAINOS informing Owen
Sloane, Esq. of the settlement agreement. RUBINSON Depo p. 89, 1.12-19, p. 113, 1.15-
25.
(c) RUBINSON had no recollection of informing Richard Rosenberg, Esq.
of the settlement agreement or any recollection or knowledge of CLAINOS informing
Richard Rosenberg, Esq. of the settlement agreement. RUBINSON Depo p. 90, I. 1-8.
CLAINOS testimony:
(a) CLAINOS knew that the bandmembers were represented by Owen
Sloane, Esq. and Richard Rosenberg, Esq. CLAINOS Depo., p. 26, I. 1-13.
(b) CLAINOS never discussed the lawsuit with Owen Sloane, Esq. And
Richard Rosenberg, Esq., the attorneys who regularly represented the bandmembers.
CLAINOS Depo., p. 50, 1.25; p. 51, 1.1-3; p. 56, 1.22; p. 57, 1.1.
9. The true beneficiary of the August 28, 1973 Stipulated Settlement was the
former manager/producer, RUBINSON, who was not even a party to the settled lawsuit.
This contention is supported by the following evidence which was submitted by Plaintiffs
in their Opposition to KA TZ' Motion for Summary Judgment:
(a) CLAINOS recalled that the settlement involved a considerable amount
of money. CLAINOS Depo. p. 61, 1.21.
(b) CLAINOS never spoke with any of the Moby Grape bandmembers
after the August 1973 settlement. CLAINOS Depo. p. 69, I. 3-5.
(c) CLAINOS had personal knowledge that money went to RUBINSON.
CLAINOS Depo. p. 34, 1.7-16. He didn't have anything to do with that. CLAINOS Depo.
D. 62.1. 16-20-
Exhibit 24 which is a summary of the distribution of settlement proceeds and
Exhibit 12 which is a summary of the settlement money collected.
Further, the doctrine of laches does not apply in this case since defendant Katz has
not submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the delay by
Plaintiffs in asserting their claims. To the contrary, Defendant Katz has derived benefit
from the delay by receiving income that would otherwise have gone to Plaintiffs. Those
benefits are set out in the August 28, 1973 Stipulated Settlement and Order Thereon,
Exhibit 15.
B. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SET ASIDE
Plaintiffs' Mction to Set Aside the August 28, 1973 Stipulated Settlement and Order
Thereon is granted for the reasons stated below:
1. Plaintiffs were not informed of the proceedings in 1973 that concluded in the
August 1973 Stipulated Settlement and Order Thereon. This determination is based upon
the following evidence which was submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their Motion to Set
Aside: Exhibit 20, Declaration of LEWIS; Exhibit 21, Declaration of STEVENSON; Exhibit
22, Declaration of MiLLER.
2. The attorney who claimed to be representing Plaintiffs in 1973 was actually
representing the interests of their former manager and producer. This determination is
based upon the following evidence which was submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their
Motion to Set Aside: Attorney Nicholas Clainos ("CLAINOS") was deposed on November
9, 1994. His testimony confirmed the following facts:
(a) CLAINOS began working as a self-employed attorney in 1972, the
year he started work on this case. CLAINOS Depo. p. 13, I. 11.
(b) David Rubinson ("RUBINSON") contacted him regarding the work to
be done in this case. CLAINOS Depo. p. 171 I. 24-25; p. 18, I. 1-2.
(c) CLAINOS worked out of RUBINSON's office and had a desk there.
CLAINOS Depo. p. 67, I. 14-16.
(d) CLAINOS was performing other legal services for RUBINSON in 1973.
CLAINOS Depo. p. 51, 1.15.
(e) CLAINOS had no written fee or legal services agreement with the
members of Moby Grape. CLAINOS Depo. p. 21, I. 8.
(f) CLAINOS sent his legal services bills to RUBINSON, not to the
band members. CLAINOS Depo. p. 31, 1.10-13.
(g) All of CLAINOS' legal billings relating to Moby Grape were paid by
RUBINSON. CLAINOS Depo. p. 31, 1.14.
(h) CLAINOS had difficulty locating and communicating with the band.
CLAINOS Depo. p. 38, I. 1-18.
(I) CLAINOS claimed a total of two meetings with the band. CLAINOS
Depo. p. 42, I. 18. Both meetings were arranged by RUBINSON. CLAINOS Depo. p. 43,
1. 3.
(j) The members of Moby Grape were not present at the settlement
conference. CLAINOS Depo. p. 46, 1.15-17.
(k) CLAINOS knew that the band members were represented by Owen
Sloane, Esq. and Richard Rosenberg, Esq. CLAINOS Depo. P. 26, 1.1-13.
(I) CLAINOS never discussed the lawsuit with Owen Sloane, Esq. and
Richard Rosenberg, Esq., the attorneys who regularly represented the bandmembers.
CLAINOS Depo. p. 50, 1. 25; p. 51, 1. 1-3; p. 56, 1. 22; p. 57 II. 1.
(m) CLAINOS did discuss the settlement with RUBINSON. CLAINOS
Depo. p. 51, 1.5-10.
3. All of the proceeds of the 1973 settlement were diverted to the former
manager/producer, RUBINSON, and his attorneys so that Plaintiffs received nothing by
way of settlement. This determination is based upon the following evidence which was
submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their Motion to Set Aside:
(a) CLAINOS recalled that the settlement involved a considerable amount
of money. CLAINOS Depo. p. 61, I. 21.
(b) CLAINOS never spoke with any of the Moby Grape bandmembers
after the August 1973 settlement. CLAINOS Oepo. p. 69, I. 3-5.
(c) CLAINOS had personal knowledge that money went to RUBINSON.
CLAINOS Oepo. p. 34, 1.7-16. He didn't have anything to do with that. CLAINOS Oepo.
p. 62, I. 16-20.
Exhibit 24 which is a summary of the distribution to RUBINSON of settlement
proceeds and Exhibit 12 which is a summary of the settlement money collected.
4. The attorney who executed the August 28, 1973 Stipulated Settlement did
so without the knowledge or permission of Plaintiffs rendering that agreement void contrary
to his representations to the Court at the time of settlement. This determination is based
upon the following evidence which was submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their Motion
to Set Aside:
(a) CLAINOS could not recall if all the bandmembers were at either of the
two meetings. CLAINOS Oepo. p. 20, 1.25; p. 21, I. 1-4; p. 41, I. 19-22.
(b) CLAINOS probably didn't speak to the bandmembers between the
time the settlement was reached and the time the settlement document was executed.
CLAINOS Oepo. p. 49, 1.21-5; p. 50, I. 1-4.
(c) CLAINOS claimed the second meeting was within a matter 9f months
of settlement -but couldn't say if it was within weeks or days. CLAINOS Oepo. p. 49,
1.7-13.
(d) CLAINOS claimed to have met with SPENCE finding him "very well-
mannered and articulate- after a thirty minute conversation. CLAINOS Oepo. p. 38, I. 22-
23; p. 39, 1. 2-11.
(e) CLAINOS claimed to have met with the person who ran the facility
where SPENCE was staying and confirmed that SPENCE was not "mentally incompetent.-
CLAINOS Oepo. p. 39, I. 13-24.
Exhibit 17, Or. Smolowe Report on Spence; Exhibit 18, Mosley Evaluation
by V.A.; Exhibit 19, Or. Smolowe Report on Mosley.
(b) CLAINOS never spoke with any of the Moby Grape bandmembers
after the August 1973 settlement. CLAINOS Oepo. p. 69, I. 3-5.
(c) CLAINOS had personal knowledge that money went to RUBINSON.
CLAINOS Oepo. p. 34, 1.7-16. He didn't have anything to do with that. CLAINOS Oepo.
p. 62, I. 16-20.
Exhibit 24 which is a summary of the distribution to RUBINSON of settlement
proceeds and Exhibit 12 which is a summary of the settlement money collected.
4. The attorney who executed the August 28, 1973 Stipulated Settlement did
so without the knowledge or permission of Plaintiffs rendering that agreement void contrary
to his representations to the Court at the time of settlement. This determination is based
upon the following evidence which was submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their Motion
to Set Aside:
(a) CLAINOS could not recall if all the bandmembers were at either of the
two meetings. CLAINOS Oepo. p. 20, 1.25; p. 21, I. 1-4; p. 41, I. 19-22.
(b) CLAINOS probably didn't speak to the bandmembers between the
time the settlement was reached and the time the settlement document was executed.
CLAINOS Oepo. p. 49, 1.21-5; p. 50, I. 1-4.
(c) CLAINOS claimed the second meeting was within a matter 9f months
of settlement -but couldn't say if it was within weeks or days. CLAINOS Oepo. p. 49,
1.7-13.
(d) CLAINOS claimed to have met with SPENCE finding him "very well-
mannered and articulate- after a thirty minute conversation. CLAINOS Oepo. p. 38, I. 22-
23; p. 39, 1. 2-11.
(e) CLAINOS claimed to have met with the person who ran the facility
where SPENCE was staying and confirmed that SPENCE was not "mentally incompetent.-
CLAINOS Oepo. p. 39, I. 13-24.
Exhibit 17, Or. Smolowe Report on Spence; Exhibit 18, Mosley Evaluation
by V.A.; Exhibit 19, Or. Smolowe Report on Mosley.
(b) CLAINOS never spoke with any of the Moby Grape bandmembers
after the August 1973 settlement. CLAINOS Oepo. p. 69, I. 3-5.
(c) CLAINOS had personal knowledge that money went to RUBINSON.
CLAINOS Oepo. p. 34, 1.7-16. He didn't have anything to do with that. CLAINOS Oepo.
p. 62, I. 16-20.
Exhibit 24 which is a summary of the distribution to RUBINSON of settlement
proceeds and Exhibit 12 which is a summary of the settlement money collected.
4. The attorney who executed the August 28, 1973 Stipulated Settlement did
so without the knowledge or permission of Plaintiffs rendering that agreement void contrary
to his representations to the Court at the time of settlement. This determination is based
upon the following evidence which was submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their Motion
to Set Aside:
(a) CLAINOS could not recall if all the bandmembers were at either of the
two meetings. CLAINOS Oepo. p. 20, 1.25; p. 21, I. 1-4; p. 41, I. 19-22.
(b) CLAINOS probably didn't speak to the bandmembers between the
time the settlement was reached and the time the settlement document was executed.
CLAINOS Oepo. p. 49, 1.21-5; p. 50, I. 1-4.
(c) CLAINOS claimed the second meeting was within a matter 9f months
of settlement -but couldn't say if it was within weeks or days. CLAINOS Oepo. p. 49,
1.7-13.
(d) CLAINOS claimed to have met with SPENCE finding him "very well-
mannered and articulate- after a thirty minute conversation. CLAINOS Oepo. p. 38, I. 22-
23; p. 39, 1. 2-11.
(e) CLAINOS claimed to have met with the person who ran the facility
where SPENCE was staying and confirmed that SPENCE was not "mentally incompetent.-
CLAINOS Oepo. p. 39, I. 13-24.
Exhibit 17, Or. Smolowe Report on Spence; Exhibit 18, Mosley Evaluation
by V.A.; Exhibit 19, Or. Smolowe Report on Mosley.
5. Plaintiffs SPENCE and MOSLEY were never parties to the Action which was
settled on August 28, 1973. This determination is based upon the following evidence
which was submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their Motion to Set Aside: Exhibit 1, Petition
to Determine Controversy; Exhibit 3, Labor Commissioners Award; Exhibit 4, KA TZ Notice
of Appeal (note caption excluding SPENCE & MOSLEY as parties); Exhibit 16, General
Appearance day of settlement.
6. The August 1973 Settlement was one-sided, unfair and unreasonable to
Plaintiffs. This determination is based upon the following evidence which was submitted
by Plaintiffs in support of their Motion to Set Aside: Declaration of expert witness Robert
E. Gordon, Esq., 11 13, 1.7-11.
7. Plaintiffs SPENCE and MOSLEY were both mentally incompetent and
therefore psychiatrically and legally disabled in August of 1973 and incapable of entering
into any legally binding agreements on their own. This determination is based upon the
following evidence which was submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their Motion to Set
Aside: Exhibit 17, Dr. Smolowe Report on SPENCE; Exhibit 18, MOSLEY Evaluation by
V.A.; Exhibit 19, Dr. Smolowe report on Mosley. Exhibit 25, V.A. Report on Mosley six
days before the settlement.
8. The attorneys who did represent these Plaintiffs in 1973 were never advised
of the August 28, 1973 Stipulated Settlement. This determination is based upon the
following evidence which was submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their Motion to Set
Aside: Exhibit 31, Declaration of Owen Sloane, Esq.
RUBINSON was deposed on January 25, 1995. His testimony confirmed that
following facts:
(a) RUBINSON knew that Owen Sloane, Esq. and Richard Rosenberg,
Esq. were the attorneys for Plaintiffs LEWIS and MOSLEY. RUBINSON Depo p. 40, 1.4-
8.
(b) RUBINSON had no recollection of ever informing Owen Sloane, Esq.
of the settlement agreement or any knowledge or recollection of CLAINOS informing Owen
Sloane, Esq. of the settlement agreement. RUBINSON Depo p. 89, I. 12-19, p. 113, I. 15-
25,
(c) RUBINSON had no recollection of informing Richard Rosenberg, Esq.
of the settlement agreement or any recollection or knowledge of CLAINOS informing
Richard Rosenberg, Esq. of the settlement agreement. RUBINSON Depo p. 90, I. 1-8.
CLAINOS testimony:
(a) CLAINOS knew that the band members were represented by Owen
Sloane, Esq. and Richard Rosenberg, Esq. CLAINOS Depo., p. 26, 1.1-13.
(b) CLAINOS never discussed the lawsuit with Owen Sloane, Esq. And
Richard Rosenberg, Esq., the attorneys who regularly represented the bandmembers.
CLAINOS Depo., p. 50, 1.25; p. 51, 1.1-3; p. 56, 1.22; p. 57, 1.1.
9. The true beneficiary of the August 28, 1973 Stipulated Settlement was the
former manager/producer, RUBINSON, who was not even a party to the settled lawsuit.
This determination is based upon the following evidence which was submitted by Plaintiffs
in support of their Motion to Set Aside:
(a) CLAINOS recalled that the settlement involved a considerable amount
of money. CLAINOS Depo. p. 61, 1.21.
(b) CLAINOS never spoke with any of the Moby Grape bandmembers
after the August 1973 settlement. CLAINOS Depo. p. 69, I. 3-5.
(c) CLAINOS had personal knowledge that money went to RUBINSON.
CLAINOS Depo. p. 34, 1.7-16. He didn't have anything to do with that. CLAINOS Depo.
p. 62, I. 16-20.
Exhibit 24 which is a summary of the distribution of settlement proceeds and
Exhibit 12 which is a summary of the settlement money collected.