Law office of Sam Chandra attempts to strike deal with co-defendant who was never served.

Corrupt attorneys abound. In this case the Law offices of Sam Chandra are involved in an unlawful detainer case concerning joint community of property.  The house was illegally foreclosed upon as there was no notice of sale and sold at a riduclously low price, substantially below prevailing market value.

The Law offices of Sam Chandra initiated an unlawful detainer case, against both people listed on the title of the house who happen to be joint community of property title holders.  They failed to serve the second co-defendant in this case although  Riverside Local rules of court 3530 specifies that “In all unlawful detainer cases, the complaint shall be served on all defendants, and a proof of serve filed with the Court, within 30 days of filing the original complaint”. The mandatory requirement of the statute refers to the time frame and that ALL defendants shall be served.

In their haste to act against the main defendant in the case who has fought against the illegal foreclosure they attempted to reach a deal with the co-defendant in this case who maintained that he was never served and who did not make an appearance in the case as he was never served.  The below correspondence describes what Counsel William Fitch acting on behalf of the Law offices of Sam Chandra attempted to achieve, namely to bribe the co-defendant in this case who was never served with the summons and the complaint to drop the judgment against him if he agrees to sign a stipulation that he was served.  In doing so the attorneys played on the vindictive desire of the ex-husband to stick it to his ex-wife.

It is up to a court to accept any proposed judgment even if there is a stipulation by any party and a court with a reasonable modicum of intelligence would ask a few questions along the lines of: “Why should I approve a judgment stipulating that the co-defendant was served in an unlawful detainer case in exchange for dropping the judgment against the same co-defendant when service of summons and complaint is a mandatory requirement to obtaining a judgment against any defendant?”.

The language of the email describes the vendetta that this firm has against the defendant in this case.

Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 16:28:21 -0700
Subject: Re: xxxxxxxxxxxx
here it is again.  Sign it and get it back to me.  I’ll get a signature on it and return it to you for filing.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  wrote:

I never received anything…. please send it again and I will file it…. Thanx


Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:24:10 -0700

Subject: RE: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I forwarded you a stipulation quite some time ago that required only that you sign it and file it. Did you not get it?

On Apr 26, 2012 6:24 AM, “xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  wrote:

Hey… I never heard anything more from you?  You said you were going to fix this….. If you are not… I have no choice but to work with her and I would really rather not…



Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:57:59 -0800
Subject: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I represent Riverhawk Funding, LLC.

As you may or may not be aware, your former wife has brought yet another motion in the eviction case that was filed against both you and her.  I gather you are readily familiar with her propensity for doing this given the number of appeals that have been filed within your divorce proceedings.

The motion raises a potential issue which we would like to address as follows.  If you are interested, Riverhawk is willing to enter into a stipulation between yourself and them wherein we will agree to set aside the default which was entered against you and then dismiss you from the action.  The upshot of this will be to leave xxxxxxxxxxxas the only person obligated to Riverhawk for monetary damages.  It will take you completely off the hook for the judgment.

If you’re interested, please respond to the email. If you’re unsure, let me know that you might be interested and then speak with an attorney about our offer.  I’ll keep the offer open until I hear from you one way or the other.  We will prepare all of the paperwork.


William S. Fitch
Law Offices of Sam Chandra, APC
710 S. Myrtle #600
Monrovia, California 91016
Tel   (949) 689-5371

William S. Fitch
Law Offices of William S. Fitch
324 W. Foothill Blvd, 2nd Floor
Monrovia, California 91016
Tel   (949) 689-5371
Fax  (949) 544-0213

One comment on “Law office of Sam Chandra attempts to strike deal with co-defendant who was never served.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s