LA Resume

Louis Anthes
4307 E. 4th St., Unit 7
Long Beach, CA 90814
louis.anthes@gmail.com
(562) 912-2221

________________________ Career Highlights ________________________
• Immigrants and Lawyers, 1870-1940: A Cultural History (New York: LFB Scholarly Press, 2003)
• Prepared pre-litigation and litigation strategies for clients, including filing answer, cross-complaint, motion
for summary judgment, motion to compel discovery
• Represented clients at pre-trial hearings, depositions, and mediation
• Passed the California Bar Exam on my first attempt, eight years following graduation from law school
• Developed a specialist's knowledge of California's medical marijuana laws
• Published author appearing in several scholarly journals, websites, magazines and newspapers, and fiction
anthologies – with a focus on the history and politics of immigration law, the U.S. legal system, the legal
profession and LGBT culture
• Relocated to France by securing employment, immigration visa, and housing, while actively maintaining
membership in Paris ActUp, 2001-2003
• Financed three-month stay in India, which included managing the musical career of American musician
• Expert public speaking skills developed in graduate education and applied in classrooms, volunteer
organizations, and local government public hearings

_____________________ Relevant Employment Experience ____________________

• Law Offices of Louis Anthes, Los Angeles, CA, November 2009 – Present
• California Court of Appeal, Santa Ana, CA, Court Extern, January 2009 – June 2009
• University Preparatory Charter Academy, Oakland, CA, Teacher of Government and Economics, October
2006 – March 2007
• Vogel & Vogel, Paris, France, Legal Translator (French to English), January 2003 – March 2003
• Clemson University, Clemson, SC, Assistant Professor of United States History, August 2000 – August
2001
• Graham & James LLP, New York, NY, Summer Associate, June 1999 – August 1999
• Wasserstein Perella, LLC, New York, NY and Chicago, IL, Support Staff Services, January 1991—
September 1995

________________________ Education ________________________

• Juris Doctor, New York University School of Law, New York, NY, 2000
• Doctor of Philosophy in United States History, New York University School of Arts and Humanities, New
York, NY, 2000
• Master of Arts in the Social Sciences, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 1991
• Bachelor of Arts, Politics, Economics, Rhetoric and Law, The University of Chicago, IL, 1990

1
LOUIS ANTHES, ESQ. (CSB # 263059)
2 Email: Louis.Anthes@gmail.com
3
4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7
4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166

5 Attorneys for Defendant / Cross - Complainant
6
JACOB ILOULIAN

7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, NORTHWEST DISTRICT- VAN NUYS
9
VENTURA WEST OWNERS ) Case No.LC087630
10 ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit )
mutual benefit corporation, ) Assigned to Honorable Richard A. Adler
11 )
Plaintiffs, )
12
) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
13 v. ) FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL
14 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, ) SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, )
15
Estate, Lien or Interest in the Real Property ) Hearing:
16 described herein adverse to Plaintiff names as ) Date: June 11, 2010
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive ) Time: 9:00 a.m.
17 ) Dept: Y
Defendants ) Place: Los Angeles County Superior Court
18
) Northwest District
19 JACOB ILOULIAN, an individual, ) 6230 Sylmar Avenue
) Van Nuys, CA 91401
20 Cross-Complainant, )
v. )
21
) Supporting Document:
22 VENTURA WEST OWNERS ) 1) Memorandum of Points & Authorities in
ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit ) Support of Partial Summary Judgment;
23 mutual benefit corporation, All Person ) 2) Separate Statement of Undisputed Material
24
Unknown, Claiming Any Legal or Equitable ) Facts;
Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the ) 3) Declaration in Support of Motion;
25 Real Property described herein adverse to ) 4) Proposed Order and Judgment
Plaintiff named ROES 1 through 25, )
26 )
Cross-Defendants. )
27
____________________________________ )
28

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OR PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION -

1-

1
TO PLAINTIFFS AND EACH ONE OF THEM, AND TO THEIR
2

3
ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

4
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on June 11, 2010 at 9:00 a.m., and in
5
Department Y of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Northwest District, Unlimited Civil,
6
located at 6230 Sylmar Avenue, Van Nuys, California, 91401, Defendant will make a motion for
7
partial summary judgment or, in the alternative, partial summary adjudication, on Plaintiffs' Fifth
8

9
Cause of Action set forth in the First Amended Complaint. This motion is made pursuant to

10 Code of Civil Procedure Section 437(c), on the grounds that there is no triable issue as to any

11 material fact and Defendant is entitled to judgment thereon, in its favor, as a matter of law. This

12 motion is based upon the supporting documents, and all pleadings and papers filed in this action.
13 ISSUES:
14
Issue One: Plaintiffs have not claimed and may not claim any possessory interest in any
15
trees formerly located on that parcel of real estate in Los Angeles County which is identified by
16
APN: 2044-026-049 (“Subject Property”).
17
Issue Two: Defendant remains the current titleholder of the Subject Property, and may
18
make lawful improvements to his property, subject to all laws and regulations.
19
Issue Three: Regarding former trees exclusively on Defendant's property, Plaintiffs are
20

21 not entitled to receive any damage award regarding such trees as a matter of law, set forth in

22 California Civil Code Sec. 3346(a), as alleged in Plaintiff's Fifth Cause of Action in its First-

23 Amended Complaint.
24

25 Date:_________________ Louis Anthes, Esq.

26

27
By:
28 Louis Anthes

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OR PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION -

2-

1
3
4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7
4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166

6
JACOB ILOULIAN

7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

8 LOS ANGELES COUNTY, NORTHWEST DISTRICT- VAN NUYS
9
VENTURA WEST OWNERS ) Case No.LC087630
mutual benefit corporation, ) Assigned to Honorable Richard A. Adler
11 )
Plaintiffs, )
12
) DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM OF
13 v. ) POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
) OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
14 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, ) JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, ) ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY
15
Estate, Lien or Interest in the Real Property ) ADJUDICATION
16 described herein adverse to Plaintiff names as )
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive )
17 ) Hearing:
Defendants ) Date: June 11, 2010
18
) Time: 9:00 a.m.
19 JACOB ILOULIAN, an individual, ) Dept: Y
) Place: Los Angeles County Superior Court
20 Cross-Complainant, ) Northwest District
v. ) 6230 Sylmar Avenue
21
) Van Nuys, CA 91401
22 VENTURA WEST OWNERS )
ASSOCIATION, INC. a California non profit )
23 mutual benefit corporation, All Person )
24
Unknown, Claiming Any Legal or Equitable )
Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the )
25 Real Property described herein adverse to )
Plaintiff named ROES 1 through 25 , )
26 )
Cross-Defendants. )
27
____________________________________ )
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1

1 INTRODUCTION
2 Partial summary judgment in Defendant's favor is appropriate on Plaintiffs' claim
3
for damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3346(a) (“CC Sec. 3346(a)”) as set forth
4
in the Fifth Cause of Action of Plaintiffs‟ First Amended Complaint. CC Sec. 3346(a) clearly
5

6
states that, under the Code, a claimant for damages to trees must be the owner of the land upon

7 which the trees are attached. Prior to filing the Fifth Cause of Action, Plaintiffs have not only

8 never claimed any possessory rights, much less title, to either that parcel of real estate in Los
9
Angeles County which is identified by APN: 2044-026-049 (“Subject Property”) or any trees
10
attached to the Subject Property, but also Plaintiffs have affirmatively denied making such
11
claims to possessory rights to the Subject Property. As the Plaintiffs have not made, and are
12

13 unable to make, a single possessory claim, upon which any facts emerging from discovery would

14 have to be strictly related to establish the elements necessary to supporting Plaintiffs‟ Fifth Cause
15
of Action for damages pursuant to CC Sec. 3346(a), Defendant has met the burden of showing
16
that Plaintiffs‟ Fifth Cause of Action has no merit. Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(p)(2)
17
(“CCP 437c(p)(2)”).
18

19

20 STATEMENT OF FACTS
21
JACOB ILOULIAN, Defendant, is the current title holder of that parcel of real
22
estate which is located in Los Angeles County and which is identified by APN: 2044-026-049
23
(the “Subject Property”).
24

25 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant recently became the title holder

26 of the Subject Property having purchased the same at a County Tax Auction.
27

28

2

1 Plaintiffs have denied that it claims any possessory interest in the Subject
2 Property to which Defendant holds title.
3

4
LEGAL DISCUSSION
A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication has met her
5
burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if she also has shown that one or more
6

7 elements of the cause of action cannot be established. CCP Sec. 437c(p)(2). In its Fifth Cause

8 of Action, (“Injury to Trees,” ¶4), Plaintiffs allege Defendant is responsible for payment of
9
damages “in accordance with provisions of California Civil Code Sec. 3346.” CC Sec. 3346(a)
10
reads, in pertinent part:
11
“For wrongful injuries to timber, trees, or underwood upon the land
12

13 of another, or removal thereof, the measure of damages is three

14 times such sum as would compensate for the actual detriment...”
15
Plaintiffs boldly and broadly assert, “based on the various easements, Plaintiffs had the right to
16
exclusive possess [sic] and use of the Subject Property” (PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF
17

18 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR

19 LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, Part I, ¶2, ll. 16-18), and upon that sole

20 assertion, Plaintiffs allege damages under CC Sec. 3346(a). This law requires that the claimant
21 establish that the alleged tree injuries caused by Defendant were perpetrated “upon the land of
22 another,” and in this case the word, “another,” as it appears in the statute would apply to the
23
“Plaintiffs.” To invoke the remedies afforded by CC Sec. 3346(a), Plaintiffs must show a
24
possessory interest in the land upon which the injured trees had been attached. Notwithstanding
25
Plaintiffs' assertions, Plaintiffs fail to establish this element of their claim under CC Sec. 3346(a).
26

27

28

3

1
A. Easements Create Ristricted Non-Possessory Use Rights
2
Without addressing in this motion the merits of Plaintiffs' claims to any easement
3
in their lawsuit, and assuming solely for the sake of this motion that the Plaintiffs may use the
4
property pursuant to a recorded easement, it is a settled matter of California law that easements
5

6
are legally distinguishable from estates in land such as ownership in fee, tenancy in common,

7 joint tenancy, and leaseholds, which are forms of possession of land. (12 Witkin, Summary of

8 Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Real Property, Secs. 9–10, 382, pp. 59– 60, 446–447.) “ „An easement
9 involves primarily the privilege of doing a certain act on, or to the detriment of, another's
10 property.‟ An easement gives a non-possessory and restricted right to a specific use or activity
11
upon another's property, which right must be less than the right of ownership.” (Mehdizadeh v.
12
Mincer (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1306, quoting Wright v. Best (1942) 19 Cal.2d 368, 381.)
13
Thus, “[t]he owner of an easement is not the owner of the property, but merely the possessor of a
14
„right to use someone's land for a specified purpose … .‟ ” (Cody F. v. Falletti (2001) 92
15
Cal.App.4th 1232, 1242, quoting Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. v. Godwin Liv. Trust (9th Cir.
16

17
1994) 32 F.3d 1364, 1368; see Kazi v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (2001) 24 Cal.4th 871,

18 881 [An easement “represents a limited privilege to use the land of another … , but does not

19 create an interest in the land itself.”].)

20 Given the settled law on easements, and assuming merely for the sake of
21 argument that Plaintiffs have a recorded easement to protect their limited right to use the
22
Defendant's property strictly for parking and related maintenance purposes, it necessitates a leap
23
in logic – and an unfaithful reading of the law – to assert so broadly and boldly, as have the
24
Plaintiffs in their Fifth Cause of Action, “based on the various easements, Plaintiff had the right
25
to exclusive possess [sic] and use of the Subject Property.” See esp., Blackmore v. Powell
26
(2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1593, quoting Otay Water Dist. v. Beckwith (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 1041
27

28

4

1
[even a recorded easement “incorporating a right of exclusive use” – a claim which case goes
2
further than any facts alleged in this current case – “may fall short of ownership”].
3
Plaintiffs' assertion, offered without elaboration or reasoned explanation, directly
4
contradicts previous Plaintiffs' statements denying any claims to any possessory rights to the
5

6
Subject Property. Notably, Plaintiffs' previous denial of any claim to any possessory rights in the

7 Subject Property would be the appropriate legal position of any alleged easement holder as

8 towards almost any burdened estate. And for this reason, it should not be too difficult for
9 Plaintiffs to concede why Plaintiffs' previous statements denying claims to possession of the
10 Subject Property and recognizing the Defendant's initial admissions to the same were so easily
11
made – they were the more logical legal position to take, as documented in Plaintiff's pleadings
12
previously submitted to this court, presumably in good faith and without frivolous intent.
13
(DEFENDANT'S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS).
14

15
B. California Civil Code Section 3346(a)
16

17
CC Section 3346(a) is normally used “to educate blunderers (persons who

18 mistake location of boundary lines) and to discourage rogues (persons who ignore boundary

19 lines), to protect timber from being cut by others than the owner." See Gould v. Madonna (1970)

20 5 Cal.App.3d 404, 408. Quite simply, the law is one of California's tree-cutting regulations
21 encouraging would-be cutters to pay for the costs of determining property boundary lines prior to
22
cutting, as Defendant admits to having performed this responsibility. (DECLARATION OF
23
JACOB ILOULIAN at paragraph 14). The aim of CC Section 3346(a) was not to empower
24
alleged easement-holders encroaching upon the rights of estate-holders taking lawful steps
25
towards improving and developing their property. Rather, CC Section 3346(a) primarily
26
discourages unlawful tree-cutting in the lumber industry. Drewry v. Welch (1965) 236
27
Cal.App.2d 159.
28

5

1
CC Section 3346(a) clearly sets out that statutory recovery for damages to trees is
2
based upon trees injured “upon the land of another.” Defendant has been the undisputed owner
3
of the Subject Property, regarding which Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant
4
recently became its owner having purchased it at a County Tax Auction. As the Plaintiffs has
5

6
denied claims to ownership to the Subject Property, and are unable legally to make any

7 possessory claim thereto, Plaintiffs are unable to establish the necessary element of posessory

8 interest in the Defendant's trees, as clearly set forth in CC Section 3346(a).
9

10 GROUNDS FOR GRANTING MOTION
11
Where moving party has met its initial burden, the party opposing a summary
12
judgment must present admissible evidence showing a triable fact issue. FSR Brokerage, Inc., v.
13
Superior Court (Blanco) (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 69, 73-74. Mere claims and theories are
14
insufficient to meet this burden. See, e.g., Rochlis v. Walt Disney Co. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th
15
201. It is respectfully submitted that Plaintiffs' will not be able to meet their burden in opposing
16

17
summary judgment.

18 The issues raised by the motion are limited to the pleadings: issues raised for the

19 first time by an opposing declaration cannot be considered in ruling on the motion; otherwise, the

20 moving party would never obtain a summary judgment as that party would not have the ability to
21 prepare a motion because of the need to meet the burden of proof on speculative issues not raised
22
by the pleadings. Cobian v. Ordonez (1980) 103 C.A. 3d Supp. 22, 28, 163 Cal. Rptr. 126.
23

24
CONCLUSION
25
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully submits that its motion is
26
meritorious and thereon urges it be granted.
27

28

6

1 Date:_________________ Louis Anthes, Esq.
2

3
By:
4 Louis Anthes
5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

1
4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7
3
4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166

JACOB ILOULIAN
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, NORTHWEST DISTRICT- VAN NUYS
8

9 VENTURA WEST OWNERS ) Case No.LC087630
10 mutual benefit corporation, ) Assigned to Honorable Richard A. Adler
)
11 Plaintiffs, )
) DEFENDANT'S SEPARATE STATEMENT
12 v. ) OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN
) SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL
13 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, ) ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY
14 ADJUDICATION
Estate, Lien or Interest in the Real Property )
16 )
Defendants )
17 )
JACOB ILOULIAN, an individual, )
18 )
Cross-Complainant, )
19
v. )
20 )
VENTURA WEST OWNERS )
mutual benefit corporation, All Person )
22 Unknown, Claiming Any Legal or Equitable )
23 )
Real Property described herein adverse to
)
24 Plaintiff named ROES 1 through 25 , )
25 Cross-Defendants. )
____________________________________ )
26

27

28 PLAINTIFF‟S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION -1-

1 Facts Evidence
2 FACT 1: COMPLAINT,
JACOB ILOULIAN (“Iloulian”) is the current Page 2, Paragraph 2, Lines 1 - 3.
3
owner of that parcel of real estate which is
4 located in Los Angeles County and which is
identified by APN: 2044-026-049 (the
5 “Subject Property”).

6 FACT 2: COMPLAINT,
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that Page 3, Paragraph 8, Lines 10 – 12.
7 basis alleges, that Iloulian recently became
the owner of the Subject Property having
8 purchased the same at a County Tax Auction.

9
FACT 3: ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT,
10 Plaintiff denies that it claims an ownership Page 5, Paragraph 32, Lines 25-28;
interest in the Subject Property. Page 8, Paragraph 56, Lines 25-26.
11
FACT 4: DECLARATION OF JOHN JACQUES,
12 Defendant Jacob Iloulian, purchased the Page 2, paragraph 3, Lines 11-13.
Subject Property at a County Tax Lien Sale
13 for approximately $50,000.

14

15

16 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: Defendant is entitled to judgment under the Plaintiff's First-
Amended Complaint.
17

18
Date:_________________ Louis Anthes, Esq.
19

20

21 By:
Louis Anthes
22

23

24

25

26

27

28 PLAINTIFF‟S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
PARTIAL SUMMARY ADJUDICATION -2-

1
4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7
3
4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166

JACOB ILOULIAN
6
7
8

)
11 Plaintiffs, )
) DECLARATION OF JACOB ILOULIAN
12 v. ) OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
) JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
13 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, ) ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION
14 Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, )
16 )
Defendants )
17 )
18 )
19
v. )
20 )
23 )
)
24 Plaintiff named ROES 1 through 25 ,
)
____________________________________ )
26

27
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT
28 OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -1-

1
I, JACOB ILOULIAN, declare:
2
I am the defendant and the cross-complainant in the above entitled action.
3
I am also the current owner of the vacant land on Ventura Blvd. in Woodland
4
Hills which is known as Los Angeles County APN: 2044-026-049 (“Subject
5
Property” herein) and I am familiar with the facts set forth in this declaration and
6
have personal knowledge thereof.
7

8
1. I personally attended a public auction which was held by the Los Angeles
9
County Tax Collector on February 9, 2009.
10
2. At that auction, I was the winning bidder for “Item Number 65,” which was
11
the Subject Property.
12
3. My winning bid amount was $50,000 (fifty thousand dollars).
13
4. On April 3, 2009, The County of Los Angeles Department of Treasurer and
14
Tax Collector recorded a Tax Deed to Purchaser of Tax-Defaulted Property as instrument
15
number 20090481576 with the county recorder. A true and accurate copy of the recorded deed is
16
attached to this Declaration as Exhibit “A.”
17
5. The recorded deed conveyed the Subject Property to me.
18
6. It is currently undisputed by all parties in this litigation that I am the current
19
owner of the Subject Property.
20
7. The Subject Property has two distinct sections: one section is currently being
21

22 used as a parking space for six cars (“Parking Section”); the other section is a grassy area

23 between the parking space and Ventura Boulevard (“Grassy Section”). I am the owner of both

24 sections.

25 8. The Grassy Section of my Subject Property is distinctively bordered by two

26 walls, which were erected prior to my acquisition of title to the Subject Property and which any

27

1
reasonably prudent person can recognize as the boundaries of my Subject Property with respect
2
to the neighboring properties. One wall borders the Eastern side of the property and the other
3
wall borders the Western side of the property. The description of the two bordering walls are as
4
follows:
5
a. Easterly border of the Grassy Section features brick peach-colored wall,
6
approximately five (5) feet in height, separating the Subject Property from the
7
neighboring property located at 23271 Ventura Blvd. (See Exhibit “B”). I am
8
informed and believe the owners of 23271 Ventura Blvd are not a party to this
9
litigation.
10
b. Westerly border of the Grassy Section of Subject Property is marked by a
11
brick white-colored wall, approximately three (3) feet in height, separating the
12
Subject Property from the public alley. (See Exhibit “C”)
13

14
9. Entirely existing within the Grassy Section of the Subject Property were four
15
(4) eucalyptous trees, prior to my acquisition of title to the Subject Property.
16
10. These trees had been located on the Subject Property exclusively owned by
17
me.
18
11. The trunks of the trees remain completely and exclusively within the
19
distinctively bordered Grassy Section of my Subject Property.
20
12. To my belief and knowledge, no part of the tree trunks exist on any land
21

22 belonging to another.

23 13. The trunks of the trees have not yet been removed from the Subject Property.

24 Exhibit “D” shows the location of the tree trunks revealed by a photograph of the Grassy

25 Section, taken in March of 2010. These photographs unambiguously depict the location of the

26 tree trunks within the Grassy Section of my Subject Property.

27

1
14. Aware that California Civil Code Section 3346(a) requires, under threat of
2
punitive damages owed to an injured property owner, that tree-cutting activity must operate
3
within the legal boundaries permitting tree-cutting activity, I was, and remain, under the
4
impression that these trees were my property as they were attached to the Grassy Section of the
5
Subject Property upon my acquisition of the same.
6
15. Since I am the undisputed property owner of the Subject Property, including
7
the trees which were attached thereto, the trees which I removed as waste for the purpose of
8
making lawful improvements to my estate were never located on the land of another.
9
16. Declarant herein makes this declaration for and on behalf of Defendant and
10
Cross-Complainant. The facts contained herein are within the personal and firsthand knowledge
11
of the declarant who, if sworn as a witness, can competently and completely testify thereto.
12
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
13
foregoing is true and correct.
14

15
Date: ______________________________
16
JACOB ILOULIAN
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

1
4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7
3
4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166

JACOB ILOULIAN
6
7
8

)
11 Plaintiffs, )
) MEMORANDUM OF COSTS FOR
12 v. ) MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
) JUDGMENT OR, IN THE
13 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, ) ALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION
16 )
Defendants )
17 )
18 )
19
v. )
20 )
23 )
)
)
____________________________________ )
26

27 I, LOUIS ANTHES, state:

28

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS -1-

1
I am the attorney for the party who claims the below-described costs. To the best
2
of my knowledge and belief, the following items of costs are correct and have been necessarily
3
incurred in filing this motion:
4

5

6

7
1. Clerk's filing fees…………………………$200.00
8
2. Legal Research…………………………...$200.00
9
3. Attorney's Fees……………………..…… $500.00
10
TOTAL……………………………………………$900.00
11

12
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
13
foregoing is true and correct.
14

15
Date:_________________
16

17 Louis Anthes

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS -2-

1
4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7
3
4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166

JACOB ILOULIAN
6
7
8

)
11 Plaintiffs, )
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
12 v. ) PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
)
13 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, )

16 )
Defendants )
17 )
18 )
19
v. )
20 )
23 )
)
)
____________________________________ )
26

27

28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -

1 The motion of Defendant, JACOB ILOULIAN for an Order granting Summary
2 Judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, was heard by the Court on June 11, 2010.

3
On consideration of all the evidence set forth in the papers submitted, and the inferences
4
reasonably deducible therefrom, the Court determines that there is no triable issue as to any
5
material fact and that Defendant is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law.
6

7 Date: ____________________ ________________________________
HONORABLE RICHARD A. ADLER
8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -

1
4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7
3
4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166

JACOB ILOULIAN
6
7
8

)
11 Plaintiffs, )
) [proposed] JUDGMENT
12 v. )
)
13 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, )

16 )
Defendants )
17 )
18 )
19
v. )
20 )
23 )
)
)
____________________________________ )
26

27

28 [proposed] JUDGMENT
-

1
On June 11, 2010 the Court granted the motion of Defendant made pursuant to
2
Civil Procedure Section 437C on the grounds that there is no triable issue as to any material fact
3
and that Defendant is entitled to Judgment as a matter of law. The Court further ordered the
4
Judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against the Defendants. In accordance with that Order,
5

6
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Judgment is
7
entered in favor of Defendant, JACOB ILOULIAN and against Plaintiffs, VENTURA WEST
8
OWNERS ASSOCIATION. Judgment on the motion is entered for the following amounts:
9
CLERK'S FILING FEES $ 200.00
10
LEGAL RESEARCH $ 200.00
11
ATTORNEYS FEES $ 500.00
12
TOTAL $ 900.00
13

14

15 Date: ____________________ ________________________________
HONORABLE RICHARD A. ADLER
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 [proposed] JUDGMENT
-

1
4307 E. 4th St., Unit. 7
3
4 Phone: (310) 686 – 1166

JACOB ILOULIAN
6
7
8

)
11 Plaintiffs, ) PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL OF
) NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
12 v. ) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN
) THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY
13 JACOB ILOULIAN, All Persons Unknown, ) ADJUDICATION; PLAINTIFF’S
14 Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS &
Estate, Lien or Interest in the Real Property ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
15 described herein adverse to Plaintiff names as ) MOTION; DECLARATION OF SAM
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive ) MADHAV IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
16 ) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
Defendants ) PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
17 ) OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT
JACOB ILOULIAN, an individual, ) OF THE MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF
18 ) COSTS; ORDER GRANTING MOTION
Cross-Complainant, ) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT;
19
v. ) [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
20 )
23 )
)
)
____________________________________ )
26

27

28 Proof of Service
-

1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )Case Name: Ventura West v. Jacob Iloulian
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )Case#: LC087630
3
I, , declare that:
4 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and am not a
party to the within action; my business address is 20750 Ventura Blvd., Suite 100, Woodland Hills, California
5 91364.
.
6 On __________________, I served the NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; PLAINTIFF’S
7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION; DECLARATION OF SAM
MADHAV IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE
8 STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION; MEMORANDUM OF
COSTS; ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT on
9 the interested parties in this action by placing true and correct copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with
postage prepaid in the United States Mail at __________________, California, addressed as follows:
10
Matt Grode – 1880 Century Park East, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067-1621
11
[X] (By Mail [Federal]) I placed such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at
____________________, California.
12
[] (By Mail [State]) I am readily familiar with Prober & Raphael‟s practice for the collection and processing of
13 correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service; it is deposited with the United States Postal
Service on the same date in the ordinary course of business at the business address shown above; I am aware that on
14 motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more
than one day after the date of deposit for mailing contained in this declaration.
15
[] (Overnight delivery) placing true and correct copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), for overnight
16 delivery at Woodland Hills, California, delivered to a driver authorized by Airborne Express with delivery fees paid
or provided for, addressed to the person(s) on whom it is to be served, at the office address as last given by that
17 person(s) on any document filed in the case and served on the party making service or at that party‟s(s‟) place of
residence.
18 [] (By Facsimile) I further declare the above-referenced documents were transmitted to the following parties on
by facsimile transmission as follows:
19 The transmissions were reported as complete and without error.

20 [] (Personal service) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressee(s).

21 [x] Executed on __________________ at Woodland Hills, California.

22 [x] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct.
23
[] (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the Bar at whose direction this service was
made.
24 __________________________________

25

26

27

28 Proof of Service
-

ENCLOSURE B
"California Medical Marijuana 101”

While over a dozen states, and the District of Columbia, have enacted laws allowing qualified
patients to claim limited immunity from criminal prosecution for enjoying the use of medicinal
cannabis, California’s laws protecting patients’ rights to the same are, arguably, the most
scrutinized by activists, police and patients. Any attorney seeking to understand these laws to
counsel clients should acquaint themselves with the legal basics.

Three areas of law must be considered:
Federal and State Criminal Law
California Association Law
Local Government

The State of California’s Department of Justice, through the office of Attorney General, has
issued“Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use”
(“Guidelines”), as required by state law (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.81(d)). Though two
years old, these guidelines remain an excellent starting point for practitioners seeking
information on both the criminal and business components of this legal field.

CRIMINAL LAW

Federal Law

Adopted during the Nixon Administration, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) established a
federal regulatory system designed to combat recreational drug abuse. (21 U.S.C. Sec. 801, et
seq.) Notwithstanding the recommendation by the American Medical Association (AMA) to
support further medical research of cannabis (American Medical Association Council on Science
and Public Health, “Board of Trustees and Council Reports – Recommendations,” November 10,
2009), the CSA continues to classify marijuana in the same class as heroin or LSD – all
Schedule-I drugs with “no currently accepted medical use.” (21 U.S.C. Sec. 812(b)(1).)
Accordingly, the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana remains a federal criminal
offense, despite current science. (Id. at Secs. 841(a)(1), 844(a).) Therefore, a licensed doctor
may not “prescribe” marijuana in any state or territory of the United States, although the same
doctor may lawfully “recommend” marijuana – either verbally or in writing – under state law
(Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.5(d); Conant v. Walters (9th Cir. 2002) 309 F.3d 629, 632).

It must be noted, briefly, that the United States Department of Justice has issued formal
guidelines for federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of medical
marijuana: “As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in
your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing
state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.” (Memorandum for Selected United States
Attorneys, David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General, October 19, 2009.)

Though the United States Supreme Court has held that Congress has constitutional authority to

completely regulate all private activity related to cannabis production, distribution, use and so
forth (Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)), Congress has provided that states are free to
regulate in the area of controlled substances, including marijuana, provided that state law does
not positively conflict with the CSA. (21 U.S.C. Sec. 903.). California’s medical marijuana laws
have survived court challenge on the ground that they are preempted by the CSA. (County of San
Diego v. San Diego NORML (Cal.Rptr.3d 2008) WL 2930117.)

Compassionate Use Act (CUA)

One cannot understand the significance of California’s cannabis laws, without first
understanding the role of civil disobedience on this issue. On November 5, 1996, California
voters passed Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), which decriminalized the
cultivation and use of marijuana by seriously ill individuals upon a physician’s recommendation.
(Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.5.) Passage of the proposition was orchestrated by San
Francisco healthcare activist, Dennis Peron, who previously opened the Cannabis Buyers’ Club
in that city for the benefit of AIDS/HIV and cancer patients. When police shut down the club for
criminal nuisance, Peron fought back and won, as California voters enacted the first state law,
Prop 215, protecting medical marijuana.

This new law neither limited quantities of lawful cannabis possession nor the kinds of illnesses
for which patients could seek relief: “cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity,
glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.”
(Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.5(b)(1)(A) [emphasis added].). And, it protected from criminal
sanction the relationship between the patient and “primary caregiver,” defined as the person who
has “consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety” of a patient. Not
surprisingly, many patients have used CUA to set up a “dispensary” as the “primary caregiver”
to distribute cannabis to dispensary patrons. An arrangement, however, where “dispensaries that
merely require patients to complete a form summarily designating the business owner as their
primary caregiver – and then offering marijuana in exchange for cash ‘donations’ – are likely
unlawful” (Guidelines, IV.C.1.)

Indeed, California courts have upheld a narrow reading of the definition of “primary caregiver,”
requiring the element of consistent provision for the “housing, health or safety” of a patient.
(People v. Mentch (2008) 45 C.4th 274, 85 C.R.3d 480, 195 P.3d 1061.) Such a narrow judicial
reading of the statute effectively denies most dispensaries the legal protections of the “primary
caregiver” label.

Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP)

On January 1, 2004, Senate Bill 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP), became law
(Health & Saf. Code, Secs. 11362.7-11362.83.) This new legislation was more encompassing in
scope and effect than the CUA. Among the MMP’s provisions, four key areas merit attention.

First, the MMP, with certain exceptions, places limits both on the amount of dried marijuana,
and the number of living plants, which a patient could lawfully possess. These restrictions
contrasted notably with the CUA’s lack of restrictions. Recently, the California Supreme Court
held that CUA’s lack of cultivation restrictions controlled on this issue, on the jurisprudential

grounds that law enacted through legislation cannot retroactively amend law that was enacted
through the state proposition process. (People v. Kelly, Cal. 2010, No. S164830).

Second, the MMP mandates that all California counties participate in the California Department
of Public Health program to establish and maintain the registration of patients and caregivers
through a statewide identification card system. (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.71(b).) This
public identification system has been augmented by privately-maintained systems. The goal of
both public and private programs is shared: to help law enforcement officers verify that
cardholders are able to cultivate, possess, and transport certain amounts of marijuana without
being subject to arrest under specific conditions. Medical marijuana identity cards, although
voluntary (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.71(f)), do in fact provide legal, limited immunity
from prosecution and arrest.

Third, the MMP prohibits state licensing boards – law, medical, etc. – from discriminating
against licensees who seek legal protections offered under the MMP. (Health & Saf. Code, Sec.
11362.8.)

Fourth, the MMP recognizes a qualified right to patients and caregivers to form medical
marijuana associations, free of criminal sanction. Specifically, it is California Health & Safety
Code, Sec. 11362.775, which offers dispensaries the most legal protection under state law, and
consequently this subject alone merits further discussion.

CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION LAW

There may be some room for maneuver in advising clients what sorts of associational activities
are lawful, but there can be no argument that current state law consistently prohibits “for-profit”
cultivators operating in the medical marijuana field. (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.765(a).)
Furthermore, lawful associations must be formed strictly among qualified patients and
caregivers. (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.775.)

When advising clients belonging to patient associations, a lawyer should determine whether the
association is organized on a “retail” model, where labor is roughly divided into classes among
association members: one class basically including consumers; another class including
employees. This retail model, while familiar and convenient to most people, invites police
scrutiny under current law. Better is a business association which operates either: as an
organized cooperative (California Corporate Code, Secs. 12201, 12300); as a non-profit, public
benefit assocation (California Corporate Code, Secs. 5510-6910); or, as a non-profit, mutual
benefit association (California Corporate Code, Secs. 7710-8910). To mitigate the risk of being
charged with running a sham retail operation, dispensaries should follow common business
practices of maintaining security, making appropriate filings to state authorities, and keeping
records of members donating, in addition to cash, a minimal amount of labor, time and products,
to show that patient-members associate democratically. They should also file annual state
income taxes, or request an exemption prior to filing. (California State Franchise Tax Board,
Publication 927.)

Of course, medical marijuana sales activity is sanctioned by state law. The MMP explicitly
condones cash transactions between patients and primary caregivers (Health & Saf. Code, Sec.

11362.765(c)), and the California State Board of Equalization (BOE) requires non-profit
associations, including dispensaries, to pay sales tax to California. In February 2007, the BOE
issued a “Special Notice” confirming its policy of taxing medical marijuana transactions, as well
as its requirement that businesses engaging in such transactions hold a Seller’s Permit.
(http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/medseller2007.pdf.) The BOE explained, “The sale of medical
marijuana has always been considered taxable. ... Not making a profit does not relieve a seller of
his or her sales tax liability. However, whether or not you make a profit, like other retailers
making taxable sales, you can ask your customers to reimburse you for the sales taxes due on
your sales.” (http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/173.pdf.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

One of the major obstacles in California's dispensary movement has been local government. In
California, Long Beach City Prosecutor, Tom Reeves, recently advocated for eliminating all cash
transactions at dispensaries (“City Attorney Candidates Clash, Criticize Council,” by Paul
Eakins, Long Beach Press-Telegram, March, 9, 2010). Operating an association without cash
poses enormous logistical difficulties to members, and it effectively denies many patients their
rights under state law.

The MMP clearly manifests an attempt at exerting state law over county and local government.
First, the MMP identification system imposes affirmative, and elaborate, obligations on all
California counties and it restricts counties’ rights to deny patient applications for government-
issued cards (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.71). Second, in the one instance where the MMP
specifically addresses local governments adapting local variations, it permitted variations which
exceed recommended state restrictions on patients (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.77(c); again,
MMP possession limits were overturned by People v. Kelly). Otherwise, where the MMP
acknowledges the role of local and city governments, it requires them to act consistently within
the MMP (Health & Saf. Code, Sec. 11362.83): “Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or
other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws consistent with this article.”

For some courts, however, the right of local governments to limit patients’ rights remains an
issue. In City of Claremont v. Kruse, (No. B210084, Cal.App. 2d, Sep. 9, 2009), the Court of
Appeal ruled, in an unpublished decision, that California’s medical marijuana law “does not
mandate that municipalities allow medical marijuana dispensaries to operate within their city
limits, or to alter the fact that land use has historically been a function of local government under
their grant of police power.”

Looking to the future, if California voters fail to legalize cannabis, it may very well take a third
round of law-making to ensure that all California patients are able to exercise their rights under
the state's medical marijuana laws, with the full cooperation and support of local government

ENCLOSURE C

HIST 800 — Clemson University
Spring Semester 2001
4:45-7:15 T, Holtzendorff 214
Professor Louis Anthes

Black Markets in United States History: Theories and Practices
Description: This graduate seminar examines intersections between markets and crime in
United States history. The first part of the course begins with some theoretical questions about
what it means to talk about human behavior in terms of markets in property: What does it mean
to own something? Why might people trade things they may not want to own, such as gifts, or
cannot legally own, such as bogus money or stolen goods? The second part of the course turns
to historical examples of how Americans in the past engaged in social exchanges that were
tacitly or explicitly illegal. The most broad aim of the course is to encourage students to
interpret different historical practices without first resorting to contemporary preconceptions
about crime and property.

Assignments: Except for one in-class movie, the assignments for this class include journal
articles, essays, and selected chapters from books, which are supplemented by suggested
readings (i.e., the "see also" list of readings). Note that during week 12, each student will present
to the class an outline of her or his term paper (discussed below) and receive advice and criticism
from other students. Assigned readings will be placed on reserve at the library and on the
Collaborative Learning Environment (CLE), except for Albert Hirschman's The Passions and the
Interests, which should be purchased from the bookstore and Lawrence Wechsler's Boggs: A
Comedy of Values, which should be acquired on one's own.

In addition to class participation (25% of final grade), grades will reflect the quality of two
written assignments. Your first assignment is to write a 2500-word essay due week 9, in the
style of the New York Review of Books, interpreting the readings – both the required and "see
also" readings – for one of the following weeks: 2, 3, (NOT 4), 5, 6, or 7 (25% of final grade).
Your second assignment is to write a 6000-word term paper due week 17 (50% of final grade).
You must submit a one-page description of the topic of your term paper at the beginning of class
on week 6.

The term paper may take one of two forms: you may write a research paper that takes advantage
of local source materials, or you may write a paper that reviews a recently-published history
book which is relevant to the course topic but is not listed on the syllabus. If you choose to write
a review essay, then you should place the new book in its historiographical and theoretical
contexts — which will mean reading a number of additional books and articles that are not listed
on the syllabus. You may choose to publish your book review. Please see me as early in the
semester as possible to take advantage of this opportunity.

Part I: Introduction

Week 1 Overview and Introductory Discussion
T, 1/16
Linda Austin, "Babies for Sale: Tennessee Children's Adoption Scandal,"
Tennessee Historical Quarterly, v. 49 (1990), pp. 91-102
V.S. Naipaul, India: A Million Mutinies Now (1990), pp. 69-75
Alissa Rubin and Aaron Zitner, "Infertility Cases Spur an Illicit Drug Market,"
Los Angeles Times (September 10, 2000)

Part II: Theoretical Considerations

Week 2 The Market of Property
T, 1/23
Harold Demsetz, "Toward a Theory of Property Rights," American
Economic Review (1967)
Garret Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons," Science (1968)
Margaret Jane Radin, "Justice and the Market Domain," in Markets and Justice,
Chapman and Pennock, eds. (1989)
Carol Rose, "Women and Property: Gaining and Losing Ground," Virginia Law
Review (1992)

See Also...:
Ronald Coase, The Problem of Social Cost (1960)
Erving Goffman, Asylums (1961)
Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (1984)

Week 3 The Market of Morals and Symbols
T, 1/30
E.P. Thompson, "The Moral Economy of the English Crowd in the Eighteenth
Century," Past and Present (1971)
Benedict Anderson, "The Origins of National Consciousness" (chp. 3), in
Imagined Communities (1983)
Kenneth Greenberg, "Gifts, Strangers, Duels, and Humanitarianism" (Chapter 3)
in Honor and Slavery (1996)
Pierre Bourdieu, "The Economy of Symbolic Goods," in
Practical Reason (1998)

See Also...:
Thorsten Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899)
Marcel Mauss, The Gift (1954)
Robert Ellickson, Order Without Law: How Neighbors
Settle Disputes (1991)
Viviana Zelizer, The Social Meaning of Money (1994)

Week 4 The Market of Crime
T, 2/6
Joseph Gusfield, "Moral Passage: The Symbolic Process of Public Designation of
Deviance," Social Problems (1967)
Paul Rock, "Phenominalism and Essentialism in the Sociology of Deviance,"
Sociology (1973)
Stuart Henry, "Trading Networks" (Chapter 2), The Hidden Economy (1978)
Lawrence Friedman, "Setting the Price," (Chapter 5) in Crime and Punishment in
American History (1993)
Ian Taylor, "Crime, Market-Liberalism and The European Idea," in The New
European Criminology (1998)

Week 5 Market Notions in Western Cultural History
T, 2/13
Karl Marx, "The Transformation of Money into Capital" (chapters 4 and 6), in
Capital, Volume One (1867)
Michel Foucault, "Exchanging" (Chapter 6), in The Order of Things (1966)
Joyce Appleby, "Locke, Liberalism, and the Natural Law of Money," in Past and
Present (1976)
Albert Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests (1977)

See Also...
Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation (1957)
Jean Christophe Agnew, Worlds Apart (1986)
Carole Patement, The Sexual Contract (1988)
Richard White, The Middle Ground (1991)

Week 6 Market Notions in American Cultural History
T, 2/20

*** ONE-PAGE DESCRIPTION OF TERM PAPER DUE ***

John Reid, "Paying for the Elephant: Property Rights and Civil Order on the
Overland Trial," Huntington Library Quarterly 37 (1977)
William Cronon, "Bounding the Land" (Chapter 4), Changes in the Land (1983)
Christopher Clark, "The Consequences of the Market Revolution in the American
North," in The Market Revolution in America (1996)
William Novak, "Public Economy: The Well-Ordered Market," (Chapter 3) in
The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century
America (1996)
Amy Dru Stanley, "Legends of Contract Freedom," (Chapter 1) in From Bondage
to Contract (1998)

See Also...
Joyce Appleby, Capitalism and a New Social Order (1984)
Charles Sellers, Market Revolution (1991)
Thomas Bender, ed., The Anti-Slavery Debate (1992)

Haskell and Teichgraber, eds., The Culture of the Market (1993)

Part III: Historical Practices in the United States, 1800-Recent Past

Week 7 Slavery
T, 2/27
Frederick Douglass, (Chapter XI), Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass
(1845)
Lawrence McDonnell, "Money Knows No Master: Market Relations and the
American Slave Community," in Developing Dixie: Modernization in a
Traditional Society, ed. by Moore (1988), pp. 31-44
Judith Schafer, "'The Slave Who Absconds … Steals Himself" (Chapter 4), in
Slavery, the Civil Law and the Supreme Court in Louisiana (1994)
Dylan Penningroth, "Slavery, Freedom and Social Claims to Property among
African Americans, 1850-1880," Journal of American History (1997)
Walter Johnson, "Acts of Sale" (Chapter 6), in Soul by Soul (1999)

See Also...
Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men (1970)
Thomas Morris, "Police Regulations" (Chapter 16), in Southern Slavery and the
Law (1996)
Amy Dru Stanley, From Bondage to Contract (1998)
David Waldstreicher, "Reading the Runaways: Self-Fashioning, Print Culture, and
Confidence in Slavery in the 18th C Mid-Atlantic," William & Mary
Quarterly 56 (1999): 243-272.

Week 8 Counterfeiting
T, 3/6
Judith Benner, "Counterfeits and Their Sources" (chp. 4), in Fraudulent Finance:
Counterfeiting and the Confederate States: 1861-1865 (1970)
Susan Branson, "Beyond Respectability: The Female World of Love and Crime in
Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century Philadelphia," Studies in
Eighteenth-Century Culture 25 (1996): 245-264
David Johnson, "The Social World of Counterfeiting" (Chapter 1), Illegal Tender
(1995)
David Henkin, "Promiscuous Circulation" (Chapter 6), City Reading (1998)

See Also...
Herman Melville, The Confidence Man and His Masquerade (1857)
Karen Halttunen, Confidence Men and Painted Women (1982)
John Hann, "Apalachee Counterfeiters in St. Augustine," Florida Historical
Quarterly 67 (1988): 52-68
Kathleen Chamberlain, "Capitalism, Counterfeiting, and Literary Representation:
The Case of Lizzie Borden," Primary Sources and Original Works 4
(1996): 175-192

Week 9 Counterfeiting Revisited
T, 3/13

*** BOOK REVIEW DUE ***

Haas, Money Man (1992). Documentary film about the life and artwork of
J.S.G. Boggs
Lawrence Weschler, Boggs: A Comedy of Values (1999)

Week 10 Spring Break: 3/19 - 3/23

Week 11 Temperance and Prohibition
T, 3/27
Carolene Ware, "Business and Work" (Chapter 3), Greenwich Village (1935)
Mary Murphy, "Bootlegging Mothers and Drinking Daughters: Gender and
Prohibition in Butte, Montana," American Quarterly 46 (1994) 174-194
George Chauncey, "'Pansies on Parade'" (Chapter 11), Gay New York (1994)
Michael Lerner, "Liquor, Liquor Everywhere" (Chapter 7), in "Dry Manhattan,"
Ph.D. Dissertation, NYU (1999)

See Also...
Lewis Erenberg, Steppin' Out (1981)
Paul Chevingny, Gigs (1991)
Richard Hamm, Shaping the Eighteenth Amendment (1995)

Week 12 *** PRESENTATION OF OUTLINES ***. No Class Readings.
T, 4/3

Week 13 Ambulance Chasing
T, 4/10
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn., 436 U.S. 447 (1978)
David Engel, "The Oven-Bird's Song," Law and Society Review (1984)
Kenneth DeVille, "New York City Attorneys and Ambulance Chasing in the
1920s," The Historian (1997)
Louis Anthes, "Streetcorners" (Chapter 4), in "Bohemian Justice," Ph.D.
Dissertation, NYU (2000)

See Also...
Abraham Blumberg, "The Practice of Law as a Confidence Game," Law and
Society Review (1967)
Jerold Auerbach, UnEqual Justice: Lawyers and Social Change in Modern
America (1976)
Marc Galanter, "Reading the Landscape of Disputes," UCLA Law Review (1983)
Ken Dornstein, Accidentally on Purpose, Part One (1996)

Week 14 Sexuality
T, 4/17
Marie Kopp, Birth Control in Practice, Excerpts (1933)

Patricia Cline Cohen, "The Brothel Business" (Chapter 6) in The Murder of Helen
Jewett (1998)
Timothy Gilfoyle, chps. 9, 11, 12 in City of Eros: New York City, Prostitution,
and the Commercialization of Sex (1994)
Andrea Tone, "Contraceptive Consumers: Gender and the Political Economy of
Birth Control in the 1930s," Journal of Social History (March 1996)

See Also...
Linda Gordon, Woman's Body, Woman's Right (1976)
Judith Walkowitz, Prostitution and Victorian Society (1980)
John D'Emilio and Estelle Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in
America (1988)

Week 15 Abortion
T, 4/24
Pauline Bart, "Seizing the Means of Reproduction: An Illegal Feminist Abortion
Collective – How and Why It Worked," Qualitative Sociology (1987)
Diane Elze, "Underground Abortion Remembered: Part 2," Sojourner: The
Women's Forum (1988)
Lindsey Van Gelder, "The Jane Collective: Seizing Control," Ms. (1991)
Loretta Ross, "African-American Women and Abortion, 1800-1970," Theorizing
Black Feminisms (1993)

See Also...
Clifford Browder, The Wickedest Woman in New York (1988)
Richie Solinger, "'A Complete Disaster!': Abortion and the Politics of Hospital
Abortion Communities, 1950-1970," Feminist Studies (1993)
Leslie Reagan, When Abortion Was a Crime (1997)

Week 16 *** TERM PAPER DUE ***
M., 4/30

FOURTH DISTRI T . DIVI SION THREE
6 0 1 WEST SAN TA ANA BLVD .
SANTA ANA . CALIFORN IA 927 0 I
(7 1 4) S7 1 · 2754

CHAMBERS OF FAX ( 714 ) 57 1 -2755

RICH ARD M . AR ONSON
ASSOCIATE. JUSTICE June 3, 20 11

Re: Louis Anthes

To Whom It May Concern:

I enthusiastically recommend, without reservation, Louis Anthes as an
attorney capable of performing at the highest standards of the legal profession.

Louis is by far the most accomplished and talented attorney who has
clerked for me in more than 10 years at the Court of Appeal. Before taking the bar exam,
he published a book entitled Lawyers and Immigrants based on his Ph.D. dissertation at
N.Y.U., ably demonstrating his skill in assuming and shepherding to success complex
projects with real consequences for others. He proved a quick study at the intricacies of
appellate practice and, based on his superior analytic and writing skills, I enl isted him to
draft summary judicial opinions and research our most challenging issues. His pre-law
life experience was invaluable, adding weight to his analysis, which was alway
thoughtful and brilliantly expressed. While he impressed everyone in chambers with his
intelligence and work ethic, we found even more compelling his generous regard for
others and commitment to serve the public and later his clients. He always made time to
pitch in on difficult and pressing projects, despite his own responsibilities .

When he clerked for me in the spring of2009 , Louis had spent nearly eight
years away from direct study of the law, engaged in academic purs uits including Ph.D.
coursework, completing his dissertation, and landing a coveted tenure-track research and
teaching position in American history. Choosing to have a more active role in haping
people's lives through the practice of law, Louis dusted off his law degree and took on
the notoriously challenging California bar exam. To no one's surprise, he passed on his
first attempt, a remarkable feat under the circumstances. Unfortunately, he could not
have entered the legal market at a more inopportune time. I swore Louis in as a member
of the California bar in 2009, which has become known in informed legal circles as the
"lost class of 2009" because of, through no fault of their own, the dearth of hiring
opportunities plaguing the class . Louis has weathered this setback admirably_

To Whom It May Concern -2- June 3,2011
(Re: Louis Anthes)

courageously starting his own firm, and skillfully representing and protecting his clients
through the vicissitudes of practice. I am confident now is his moment to shine as an
attorney for any organization fortunate to have him.

In sum, I have no doubt Louis will excel in whatever I gal path he embarks
on, and I expect his career will be marked by outstanding professional achievement and
service to the community. He will be an excellent lawyer and I cannot recommend him
highly enough.

Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of fUl1her
assistance.

Richard M. Aronson

RMA:gI

LA Resume

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a LA Resume

Semelhante a LA Resume (20)

Último

Último (20)

LA Resume