Lawsuits & Settlements

Sacramento – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that California will receive $34.8 million as part of a nationwide settlement with Pfizer, Inc., resolving civil and criminal charges that the company paid “illegal kickbacks” and conducted improper marketing campaigns for more than a dozen of its drugs. Under the nationwide agreement, Pfizer will pay a total of $2.3 billion to the federal government and all 50 states.

Brown also announced that California will receive an additional $2.7 million in a separate settlement with Pfizer over the illegal off-label marketing of Geodon, an anti-psychotic medication. Under this agreement, Pfizer will pay a total of $33 million to California and 42 other states.

“Pfizer paid illegal kickbacks in the form of cash, high-priced dinners and weekend getaways to induce physicians to prescribe its drugs,” Brown said. “In what is the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history, the company will pay more than $2.3 billion, including $35 million to the state of California.”

$2.3 Billion Nationwide Settlement
Brown, the other attorneys general, and the U.S. Department of Justice contend that Pfizer engaged in a pattern of unlawful marketing activity to promote drugs for uses which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had not approved. It is not illegal for a physician to prescribe a drug for an unapproved use, but federal law prohibits a manufacturer from marketing a drug for off-label uses not approved by the FDA. This promotional activity included:

- Marketing Bextra for conditions and dosages other than those for which it was approved;

- Promoting the use of the anti-psychotic drug Geodon for a variety of off-label conditions such as attention deficit disorder, autism, dementia and depression for patients that included children and adolescents;

- Selling the pain medication Lyrica for unapproved conditions;

- Making false representations about the safety and efficacy of Zyvox, an antibiotic only approved to treat certain drug resistant infections.

The settlement also contends that Pfizer paid illegal kickbacks to health care professionals to induce them to promote and prescribe Bextra, Geodon, Lyrica, Zyvox, Aricept, Celebrex, Lipitor, Norvasc, Relpax, Viagra, Zithromax, Zoloft and Zyrtec. These payments allegedly took many forms, including entertainment, cash, travel and meals. Federal law prohibits payment of anything of value in exchange for the prescribing of a product paid for by a federal health care program.

As a condition of the settlement, Pfizer will enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, which will closely monitor the company’s future marketing and sales practices.

This settlement is based on nine whistleblower (qui tam) cases that were filed on behalf of California and other states in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Actions were filed by private individuals under state and federal false claims statutes, including California’s False Claims Act.

California’s pre-interest recovery of $34.8 million represents double damages, half of which will go to Medi-Cal. The remaining $17.4 million will be deposited, pursuant to state law, in the Attorney General’s False Claims Fund, which is used to support ongoing investigations and prosecutions of false claims unlawfully filed at the expense of the state.

A National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units team participated in the investigation and conducted the settlement negotiations with Pfizer on behalf of California and the other settling states. Prosecutors and auditors from the Attorney General’s Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse participated in these negotiations.

$33 Million Geodon Settlement
In the second settlement, Brown and the other attorneys general contend that Pfizer engaged in unfair and deceptive practices when it marketed Geodon for off-label uses between January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2007. As part of the settlement, Pfizer has agreed to change how it markets Geodon and has agreed to stop promoting off-label uses.

Geodon is the brand name for the prescription drug ziprasidone. The drug has been approved by the FDA for treatment of schizophrenia in adults and for manic or mixed episodes of bipolar disorder in adults. The complaint contends that Pfizer promoted Geodon for a number of off-label uses, including pediatric use and use at dosage levels higher than had been approved by the FDA. Although a physician is allowed to prescribe drugs for off-label uses, federal law prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from marketing their products for off-label uses.

The settlement mandates that Pfizer shall:
• Not make any false, misleading or deceptive claims regarding Geodon;
• Not promote Geodon for off-label uses;
• Not promote Geodon using selected symptoms of the FDA-approved diagnoses unless certain disclosures are made regarding the approved diagnoses;
• Post on its website a list of physicians and related entities who receive payments from Pfizer until 2014;
• Provide product samples of Geodon only to health care providers who have specialties that customarily treat patients who have diseases for which treatment with Geodon would be consistent with the product’s current labeling;
• Register and post on a publicly accessible website certain Pfizer-sponsored clinical trials; and
• Require its medical staff to be responsible for the identification, selection, approval and dissemination of scientific article reprints containing off-label information regarding Geodon, and that such information not be referred to or used in a promotional manner.

California will receive $2.7 million in civil penalties from Pfizer.

To report fraud or abuse, call the Attorney General's Bureau of Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse at (800) 722-0432.

Los Angeles – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today forced CashCall, Inc., an Anaheim-based fast-money lender, to stop using “loan shark tactics” in collecting debt, including abusive calls at all hours of the day and night and empty threats of law enforcement action.

The court-ordered judgment also forces CashCall to stop misleading consumers with deceptive advertising and pay $1 million in civil penalties and legal expenses. CashCall used former child actor Gary Coleman as its television spokesman.

“CashCall preyed on consumers desperate for cash, charging triple digit interest rates and using loan shark tactics to collect on their debts,” Brown said. “This judgment forces CashCall to stop harassing its customers and should serve as a warning to consumers to be wary of fast-money lenders.”

CashCall, owned by Paul Reddam, founder and former owner of DiTech mortgage company, currently charges 139.34% annual interest on the $2,600 loan it offers to consumers. This means that consumers who make the required $298.94 monthly payment over 36 months pay $10,761.84 over the life of the loan. That adds more than $8,000 in interest to the loan.

Brown contends that CashCall used illegal and abusive debt collection practices when customers were unable to make on-time payments, in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. These practices included:

• Making excessive and verbally abusive telephone calls at all hours of the day and night;
• Causing borrowers to incur bank fees by repeatedly trying to collect payments despite knowing there were insufficient funds in the borrowers’ accounts;
• Threatening to initiate law enforcement and wage garnishment proceedings against borrowers without any basis for doing so;
• Improperly discussing private financial information with borrowers’ friends, colleagues and neighbors;
• Failing to honor borrowers’ requests to cancel automatic withdrawals from checking accounts; and
• Continuing to contact borrowers by phone after receiving requests to only contact them in writing.

Brown also contends that CashCall misled customers with deceptive television, radio and online advertising in violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17500.

CashCall’s advertisements falsely suggested that low interest rate loans were available to all borrowers, when in reality, the rates advertised were only offered to some borrowers, usually members of the military. CashCall offered lower interest rates because Federal law limits the interest it can charge on loans to active duty servicemembers and their families.

Today’s court order puts an end to CashCall’s illegal debt collection practices and stops its misleading advertising. The settlement also requires CashCall to:

• Stop making excessive and verbally abusive telephone calls at all hours of the day and night;
• Pay $1 million in civil penalties and expenses related to the investigation and resolution of this case;
• Train its employees within 30 days and not fewer than four times per year thereafter to ensure compliance with the judgment;
• Terminate any officer, director or employee who violates the terms of the judgment;
• Record all telephone calls made to, or received from, prospective and current borrowers; and
• Maintain a detailed log of all consumer complaints.

A copy of the complaint and final judgment, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, is attached.

Oakland – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and eight District Attorneys today reached an agreement requiring U-Haul Company of California to “clean up its act” and improve the way it handles and disposes of hazardous materials at its 179 regulated facilities throughout the state.

“U-Haul has turned a blind eye to California’s hazardous materials laws for years, even after an explosion and fire severely damaged one of its facilities,” Brown said. “This agreement forces U-Haul to clean up its act and improve the way it handles hazardous materials, plans for emergencies and trains employees.”

U-Haul’s hazardous materials practices first came under scrutiny in November 2004, following an explosion and two-alarm fire at a Santa Rosa facility, which resulted in flash burns to an employee.

The emergency response team that arrived on the scene had difficulty assessing the situation due to the lack of information about stored hazardous materials. The facility had no site map indicating where hazardous materials were stored as required by law, and employees had failed to properly label flammable materials including gasoline. The building was damaged in the fire and ultimately closed.

Subsequently, the Attorney General’s office and 8 District Attorneys launched a 2-year statewide investigation into U-Haul’s handling of hazardous materials and training of employees. The investigation revealed violations at virtually all of U-Haul’s 179 California regulated facilities. Despite being repeatedly notified of the violations, U-Haul did not address them.

Such violations include:

• Inadequate training regarding handling of hazardous materials and hazardous materials business plans;
• Improper storage of hazardous waste such as oil filters and pans, waste gasoline and car batteries;
• Improper transport of hazardous waste; and
• Lack of statutorily mandated hazardous material business plans and emergency response plans.

The Attorney General’s office, joined by the District Attorneys of Sonoma, Alameda, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, San Francisco, Santa Clara and Riverside, filed suit on July 27, 2006, seeking penalties and a permanent injunction to enforce compliance with hazardous materials and hazardous waste laws.

Today’s agreement resolves the lawsuit and requires U-Haul to:
• Complete and maintain statutorily mandated hazardous material business plans and emergency response plans for regulated facilities;
• Train its employees how to properly handle hazardous materials;
• Retain an environmental coordinator who will oversee, monitor and submit annual reports on the company’s compliance;
• Inspect hazardous waste storage areas at regulated facilities on a weekly basis;
• Properly transport hazardous waste; and
• Pay $2 million in costs and penalties.

This settlement, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, is attached.

OAKLAND-Fighting to ensure the safety of children’s playgrounds and ball fields, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today signed off on an agreement requiring Georgia-based AstroTurf, LLC to virtually eliminate lead from its artificial grass, creating the country’s first enforceable lead standards for artificial turf products.

“As schools and daycare centers replace grass with artificial turf, extreme care must be taken to minimize lead exposure,” Brown said. “This agreement is the first of its kind and will help make playgrounds and ball fields safe for our children.”

In 2008, Brown filed suit against AstroTurf and two other companies for excessive lead levels after testing by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) found high levels in artificial turf products. Brown’s office independently tested AstroTurf and other artificial turf products and confirmed CEH’s findings. AstroTurf immediately took steps to begin reformulating its products.

Today’s consent judgment requires AstroTurf to reformulate its products so that they contain less than 100 parts per million (ppm), and to further reduce lead levels to 50 ppm by June 2010. Lab results found that some AstroTurf products contained more than 5,000 ppm lead. Lead was added to keep the colors vibrant over time. AstroTurf will be prohibited from selling any existing stock that doesn’t meet these standards.

AstroTurf will also provide a grant of $60,000 to the Public Health Trust to fund “wipe testing” of dislodgeable lead on artificial turf fields at daycare centers, schools and public playing fields in California. If the level of dislodgeable lead exceeds the specified replacement level, AstroTurf will provide replacement turf to the daycare center, school or public field at no cost.

AstroTurf will also provide a mailed warning to all customers who purchased its products in California in the past five years. The warning will (1) inform customers that the turf products contain lead; (2) explain “good maintenance practices” that can effectively reduce exposures to lead; and (3) advise the customers of the availability of the program to test and replace old turf products. AstroTurf will also establish a website to provide information to the public on lead content in its products.

The Los Angeles City Attorney and Solano County District Attorney joined Brown in the case against AstroTurf. In addition to its obligation to replace products that exceed acceptable lead levels, the company will pay $170,000 in civil penalties, grants and attorney fees.

"Today's agreement with AstroTurf sets a strong standard for other companies who have not yet agreed to eliminate lead risks to children from turf,' said CEH Executive Director Michael Green. 'Lead is a stunningly toxic chemical that has no place in playing fields for children. We applaud the Attorney General, the LA City Attorney, the Solano County DA and AstroTurf for this accord to protect California's children.'

A copy of the consent judgment is attached.

Sacramento – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today won a “profoundly important decision,” protecting 40 million acres of pristine forest land from development by reinstating a 2001 rule banning road building and commercial logging that had been repealed by the Bush Administration.

“This is a profoundly important decision because it brings to a halt the ill-considered development plans of the Bush Administration and preserves for generations to come 4.4 million acres of prime California forest,” said Brown.

The reinstatement of the 2001 'Roadless Rule' confers permanent protection on 40 million acres of pristine and near-pristine national forest land through prohibitions on road building and commercial logging. A portion of the protected land – 4.4 million – is in national forests in California.

The “Roadless Rule” was adopted at the end of the Clinton administration after years of study and public review. The rule generated more favorable public comment than any administrative action in the history of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Bush administration, however, wasted no time in launching a legal assault on the “Roadless Rule.” Initially, the administration failed to defend the rule from legal challenges and timber and oil/gas industry attacks, and ultimately repealed it in 2005 without conducting its own environmental analysis.

In response to the Bush Administration’s efforts to undo the rule’s protections, the California Attorney General's office, along with New Mexico, Oregon and Washington, filed a lawsuit in 2005 in the Northern District of California Court to reinstate the rule.

In 2007, the Northern District of California issued a decision agreeing that the rule had been unlawfully repealed and reinstated it nationwide. However, the Bush Administration immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to overturn the decision. Today’s ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the Northern District’s 2007 decision.

The ruling is attached.

Los Angeles – As part of a massive federal-state crackdown on loan modification scams, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. at a press conference today announced the filing of legal action against 21 individuals and 14 companies who ripped off thousands of homeowners desperately seeking mortgage relief.

Brown is demanding millions in civil penalties, restitution for victims and permanent injunctions to keep the companies and defendants from offering mortgage-relief services.

“The loan modification industry is teeming with confidence men and charlatans, who rip off desperate homeowners facing foreclosure,” Brown said. “Despite firm promises and money-back guarantees, these scam artists pocketed thousands of dollars from each victim and didn’t provide an ounce of relief.”

Brown filed five lawsuits as part of “Operation Loan Lies,” a nationwide sweep of sham loan modification consultants, which he conducted with the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Attorney’s office and 22 other federal and state agencies. In total, 189 suits and orders to stop doing business were filed across the country.

Following the housing collapse, hundreds of loan modification and foreclosure-prevention companies have cropped up, charging thousands of dollars in upfront fees and claiming that they can reduce mortgage payments. Yet, loan modifications are rarely, if ever, obtained. Less than 1 percent of homeowners nationwide have received principal reductions of any kind.

Brown has been leading the fight against fraudulent loan modification companies. He has sought court orders to shut down several companies including First Gov and Foreclosure Freedom and has brought criminal charges and obtained lengthy prison sentences for deceptive loan modification consultants.

Brown’s office filed the following lawsuits in Orange County and U.S. District Court for the Central District (Los Angeles):

• U.S. Homeowners Assistance, based in Irvine;
• U.S. Foreclosure Relief Corp and its legal affiliate Adrian Pomery, based in the City of Orange;
• Home Relief Services, LLC, with offices in Irvine, Newport Beach and Anaheim, and its legal affiliate, the Diener Law Firm;
• RMR Group Loss Mitigation, LLC and its legal affiliates Shippey & Associates and Arthur Aldridge. RMR Group has offices in Newport Beach, City of Orange, Huntington Beach, Corona, and Fresno;
• and
• United First, Inc, and its lawyer affiliate Mitchell Roth, based in Los Angeles.

U.S. Homeowners Assistance
Brown on Monday sued U.S. Homeowners Assistance, and its executives -- Hakimullah “Sean” Sarpas and Zulmai Nazarzai -- for bilking dozens of homeowners out of thousands of dollars each.

U.S. Homeowners Assistance claimed to be a government agency with a 98 percent success rate in aiding homeowners. In reality, the company was not a government agency and was never certified as an approved housing counselor by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. None of U.S. Homeowners Assistance’s known victims received loan modifications despite paying upfront fees ranging from $1,200 to $3,500.

For example, in January 2008, one victim received a letter from her lender indicating that her monthly mortgage payment would increase from $2,300 to $3,500. Days later, she received an unsolicited phone call from U.S. Homeowners Assistance promising a 40 percent reduction in principal and a $2,000 reduction in her monthly payment. She paid $3500 upfront for U.S. Homeowners Assistance’s services.

At the end of April 2008, her lender informed her that her loan modification request had been denied and sent her the documents that U.S. Homeowners Assistance had filed on her behalf. After reviewing those documents, she discovered that U.S. Homeowners Assistance had forged her signature and falsified her financial information – including fabricating a lease agreement with a fictitious tenant.

When she confronted U.S. Homeowners Assistance, she was immediately disconnected and has not been able to reach the company.

Brown’s suit contends that U.S. Homeowners Assistance violated:
• California Business and Professions Code section 17500 by falsely stating they were a government agency and misleading homeowners by claiming a 98 percent success rate in obtaining loan modifications;

• California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by failing to perform services made in exchange for upfront fees;

• California Civil Code section 2945.4 for unlawfully collecting upfront fees for loan modification services;

• California Civil Code section 2945.45 for failing to register with the California Attorney General’s Office as foreclosure consultants; and

• California Penal Code section 487 for grand theft.

Brown is seeking $7.5 million in civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

US Homeowners Assistance also did business as Statewide Financial Group, Inc., We Beat All Rates, and US Homeowners Preservation Center.

US Foreclosure Relief Corporation
Brown last week sued US Foreclosure Relief Corporation, H.E. Service Company, their executives -- George Escalante and Cesar Lopez -- as well as their legal affiliate Adrian Pomery for running a scam promising homeowners reductions in their principal and interest rates as low as 4 percent. Brown was joined in this suit by the Federal Trade Commission and the State of Missouri.

Using aggressive telemarketing tactics, the defendants solicited desperate homeowners and charged an upfront fee ranging from $1,800 to $2,800 for loan modification services. During one nine-month period alone, consumers paid defendants in excess of $4.4 million. Yet, in most instances, defendants failed to provide the mortgage-relief services. Once consumers paid the fee, the defendants avoided responding to consumers’ inquiries.

In response to a large number of consumer complaints, several government agencies directed the defendants to stop their illegal practices. Instead, they changed their business name and continued their operations – using six different business aliases in the past eight months alone.

Brown’s lawsuit alleges the companies and individuals violated:
• The National Do Not Call Registry, 16 C.F.R. section 310.4 and California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by telemarketing their services to persons on the registry;

• The National Do Not Call Registry, 16 C.F.R. section 310.8 and California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by telemarketing their services without paying the mandatory annual fee for access to telephone numbers within the area codes included in the registry;

• California Civil Code section 2945 et seq. and California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by demanding and collecting up-front fees prior to performing any services, failing to include statutory notices in their contracts, and failing to comply with other requirements imposed on mortgage foreclosure consultants;

• California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 by representing that they would obtain home loan modifications for consumers but failing to do so in most instances; by representing that consumers must make further payments even though they had not performed any of the promised services; by representing that they have a high success rate and that they can obtain loan modification within no more than 60 days when in fact these representations were false; and by directing consumers to avoid contact with their lenders and to stop making loan payments causing some lenders to initiate foreclosure proceedings and causing damage to consumers’ credit records.

Victims of this scam include a father of four battling cancer, a small business owner, an elderly disabled couple, a sheriff whose income dropped due to city budget cuts and an Iraq-war veteran. None of these victims received the loan modification promised.

Brown is seeking unspecified civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

The defendants also did business under other names including Lighthouse Services and California Foreclosure Specialists.

Home Relief Services, LLC
Brown Monday sued Home Relief Services, LLC., its executives Terence Green Sr. and Stefano Marrero, the Diener Law Firm and its principal attorney Christopher L. Diener for bilking thousands of homeowners out of thousands of dollars each.

Home Relief Services charged homeowners over $4,000 in upfront fees, promised to lower interest rates to 4 percent, convert adjustable-rate mortgages to low fixed-rate loans and reduce principal up to 50 percent within 30 to 60 days. None of the known victims received a modification with the assistance of the defendants.

In some cases, these companies also sought to be the lenders’ agent in the short-sale of their clients’ homes. In doing so, the defendants attempted to use their customers’ personal financial information for their own benefit.

Home Relief Services and the Diener Law Firm directed homeowners to stop contacting their lender because the defendants would act as their sole agent and negotiator.

Brown’s lawsuit contends that the defendants violated:
• California Business and Professions Code section 17500 by claiming a 95 percent success rate and promising consumers significant reductions in the principal balance of their mortgages;

• California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by failing to perform on promises made in exchange for upfront fees;

• California Civil Code section 2945.4 for unlawfully collecting upfront fees for loan modification services;

• California Business and Professions Code section 2945.3 by failing to include cancellation notices in their contracts;

• California Civil Code section 2945.45 by not registering with the Attorney General’s office as foreclosure consultants; and

• California Penal Code section 487 for grand theft.

Brown is seeking $10 million in civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

Two other companies with the same management were also involved in the effort to deceive homeowners: Payment Relief Services, Inc. and Golden State Funding, Inc.

RMR Group Loss Mitigation Group
Brown Monday sued RMR Group Loss Mitigation and its executives Michael Scott Armendariz of Huntington Beach, Ruben Curiel of Lancaster, and Ricardo Haag of Corona; Living Water Lending, Inc.; and attorney Arthur Steven Aldridge of Westlake Village as well as the law firm of Shippey & Associates and its principal attorney Karla C. Shippey of Yorba Linda — for bilking over 500 victims out of nearly $1 million.

The company solicited homeowners through telephone calls and in-person home visits. Employees claimed a 98 percent success rate and a money-back guarantee. None of the known victims received any refunds or modifications with the assistance of defendants.

For example, in July 2008, a 71-year old victim learned his monthly mortgage payments would increase from $2,470 to $3,295. He paid $2,995, yet received no loan modification and no refund.

Additionally, RMR insisted that homeowners refrain from contacting their lenders because the defendants would act as their agents.

Brown’s suit contends that the defendants violated:

• California Business and Professions Code section 17500 by claiming a 98 percent success rate and promising consumers significant reductions in the principal balance of their mortgages;

• California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by failing to perform on promises made in exchange for upfront fees;

• California Civil Code section 2945.4 for unlawfully collecting upfront fees for loan modification services;

• California Business and Professions Code section 2945.3 by failing to include cancellation notices in their contracts;

• California Civil Code section 2945.45 by not registering with the Attorney General’s office as foreclosure consultants; and

• California Penal Code section 487 for grand theft.

Brown is seeking $7.5 million in civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

United First, Inc.
On July 6, 2009, Brown sued a foreclosure consultant and an attorney -- Paul Noe Jr. and Mitchell Roth - who conned 2,000 desperate homeowners into paying exorbitant fees for 'phony lawsuits' to forestall foreclosure proceedings.

These lawsuits were filed and abandoned, even though homeowners were charged $1,800 in upfront fees, at least $1,200 per month and contingency fees of up to 80 percent of their home's value.

Noe convinced more than 2,000 homeowners to sign 'joint venture' agreements with his company, United First, and hire Roth to file suits claiming that the borrower's loan was invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it. Similar suits in other states have never resulted in the elimination of the borrower's mortgage debt.

After filing the lawsuits, Roth did virtually nothing to advance the cases. He often failed to make required court filings, respond to legal motions, comply with court deadlines, or appear at court hearings. Instead, Roth's firm simply tried to extend the lawsuits as long as possible in order to collect additional monthly fees.

United First charged homeowners approximately $1,800 in upfront fees, plus at least $1,200 per month. If the case was settled, homeowners were required to pay 50 percent of the cash value of the settlement. For example, if United First won a $100,000 reduction of the mortgage debt, the homeowner would have to pay United First a fee of $50,000. If United First completely eliminated the homeowner's debt, the homeowner would be required to pay the company 80 percent of the value of the home.

Brown's lawsuit contends that Noe, Roth and United First:

• Violated California's credit counseling and foreclosure consultant laws, Civil Code sections 1789 and 2945

• Inserted unconscionable terms in contracts;

• Engaged in improper running and capping, meaning that Roth improperly partnered with United First, Inc. and Noe, who were not lawyers, to generate business for his law firm violating California Business and Professions Code 6150; and

• Violated 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code.

Brown's office is seeking $2 million in civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

Tips for Homeowners
Brown’s office issued these tips for homeowners to avoid becoming a victim:

DON'T pay money to people who promise to work with your lender to modify your loan. It is unlawful for foreclosure consultants to collect money before (1) they give you a written contract describing the services they promise to provide and (2) they actually perform all the services described in the contract, such as negotiating new monthly payments or a new mortgage loan. However, an advance fee may be charged by an attorney, or by a real estate broker who has submitted the advance fee agreement to the Department of Real Estate, for review.

DO call your lender yourself. Your lender wants to hear from you, and will likely be much more willing to work directly with you than with a foreclosure consultant.

DON'T ignore letters from your lender. Consider contacting your lender yourself, many lenders are willing to work with homeowners who are behind on their payments.

DON'T transfer title or sell your house to a 'foreclosure rescuer.' Fraudulent foreclosure consultants often promise that if homeowners transfer title, they may stay in the home as renters and buy their home back later. The foreclosure consultants claim that transfer is necessary so that someone with a better credit rating can obtain a new loan to prevent foreclosure. BEWARE! This is a common scheme so-called 'rescuers' use to evict homeowners and steal all or most of the home's equity.

DON'T pay your mortgage payments to someone other than your lender or loan servicer, even if he or she promises to pass the payment on. Fraudulent foreclosure consultants often keep the money for themselves.

DON'T sign any documents without reading them first. Many homeowners think that they are signing documents for a new loan to pay off the mortgage they are behind on. Later, they discover that they actually transferred ownership to the 'rescuer.'

DO contact housing counselors approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), who may be able to help you for free. For a referral to a housing counselor near you, contact HUD at 1-800-569-4287 (TTY: 1-800-877-8339) or www.hud.gov.

If you believe you have been the victim of a mortgage-relief scam in California, please contact the Attorney General’s Public Inquiry Unit at http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/general.php.

Los Angeles – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today sued a foreclosure consultant and an attorney -- Paul Noe Jr. and Mitchell Roth – who conned 2,000 desperate homeowners into paying exorbitant fees for “phony lawsuits” to forestall foreclosure proceedings.

These lawsuits were filed and abandoned, even though homeowners were charged $1,800 in upfront fees, at least $1,200 per month and contingency fees of up to 80 percent of their home’s value.

“Noe and Roth ripped off homeowners desperate for help by charging unconscionable fees for phony lawsuits,” Brown said. “Instead of aggressively pursuing the lawsuits, Noe and Roth strung them along so they could continue to rake in fees.”

Beginning in mid-2008, Noe promised homeowners facing foreclosure or default he could help them lower or eliminate their mortgage debt.

He convinced more than 2,000 homeowners to sign “joint venture” agreements with his company, United First, and hire Roth to file suits claiming that the borrower’s loan was invalid because the mortgages had been sold so many times on Wall Street that the lender could not demonstrate who owned it. Similar suits in other states have never resulted in the elimination of the borrower’s mortgage debt.

After filing the lawsuits, Roth did virtually nothing to advance the cases. He often failed to make required court filings, respond to legal motions, comply with court deadlines, or appear at court hearings. Instead, Roth’s firm simply tried to extend the lawsuits as long as possible in order to collect additional monthly fees.

Under the terms of the agreement, United First charged homeowners approximately $1,800 in upfront fees, plus at least $1,200 per month. If the case was settled, homeowners were required to pay 50 percent of the cash value of the settlement. For example, if United First won a $100,000 reduction of the mortgage debt, the homeowner would have to pay United First a fee of $50,000. If United First completely eliminated the homeowner’s debt, the homeowner would be required to pay the company 80 percent of the value of the home.

Brown’s lawsuit contends that Noe, Roth and United First:
• Violated California’s credit counseling and foreclosure consultant laws, Civil Code sections 1789 and 2945;
• Inserted unconscionable terms in contracts;
• Engaged in improper running and capping, meaning that Roth improperly partnered with United First, Inc. and Noe, who were not lawyers, to generate business for his law firm violating California Business and Professions Code 6150; and
• Violated 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code.

Brown’s office is seeking $2 million in civil penalties, full restitution for victims, and a permanent injunction to keep the company and the defendants from offering foreclosure consultant services.

Paul Noe Jr. was convicted of wire fraud in 1989 and the subject of a California Department of Insurance Cease and Desist Order in 2004. Mitchell Roth resigned for the California State Bar in late May 2009, after the State Bar closed his law firm.

VICTIMS
P.J. -- After receiving default notices and conducting unsuccessful negotiations with his lender, P.J. of Panorama City contacted United First and was promised his home could be saved. In November 2008, P.J. signed a contract with United First and hired Roth’s law firm, paying nearly $5,000 in upfront and monthly fees. Even as P.J. was paying United First, Roth did nothing to advance his case, and his lender foreclosed on his home earlier this year.

A.S. -- In June 2008, A.S. from La Mesa, Calif. received notices that his mortgage payments were going to increase from $3,700 to over $5,000 per month. A.S. was referred to United First by a member of his church. Representatives of the company assured him that his mortgage debt could be eliminated. A.S. paid over $10,000 to retain Roth’s firm. Shortly after signing a contract, A.S. received foreclosure notices from his lender. He called United First about the notices but was told not to worry and that his case was moving along. In January 2009, A.S. received a notice to come to United First's office to pick up his file. Roth had abandoned his cases, and the State Bar had shut down the firm.

Tips for Homeowners

DON'T pay money to people who promise to work with your lender to modify your loan. It is unlawful for foreclosure consultants to collect money before (1) they give you a written contract describing the services they promise to provide and (2) they actually perform all the services described in the contract, such as negotiating new monthly payments or a new mortgage loan. However, an advance fee may be charged by an attorney, or by a real estate broker who has submitted the advance fee agreement to the Department of Real Estate, for review.

DO call your lender yourself. Your lender wants to hear from you, and will likely be much more willing to work directly with you than with a foreclosure consultant.

DON'T ignore letters from your lender. Consider contacting your lender yourself, many lenders are willing to work with homeowners who are behind on their payments.

DON'T transfer title or sell your house to a 'foreclosure rescuer.' Fraudulent foreclosure consultants often promise that if homeowners transfer title, they may stay in the home as renters and buy their home back later. The foreclosure consultants claim that transfer is necessary so that someone with a better credit rating can obtain a new loan to prevent foreclosure. BEWARE! This is a common scheme so-called 'rescuers' use to evict homeowners and steal all or most of the home's equity.

DON'T pay your mortgage payments to someone other than your lender or loan servicer, even if he or she promises to pass the payment on. Fraudulent foreclosure consultants often keep the money for themselves.

DON'T sign any documents without reading them first. Many homeowners think that they are signing documents for a new loan to pay off the mortgage they are behind on. Later, they discover that they actually transferred ownership to the 'rescuer.'

DO contact housing counselors approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), who may be able to help you for free. For a referral to a housing counselor near you, contact HUD at 1-800-569-4287 (TTY: 1-800-877-8339) or www.hud.gov.

Brown's Actions to Help Homeowners and Stop Loan Modification Fraud

Sued Countrywide For Predatory Lending And Secured $8.6 Billion Settlement. In October 2008, Brown announced an $8.68 billion settlement with Countrywide Home Loans, once the largest lender in the county, after the company deceived borrowers by misrepresenting loan terms, loan payment increases, and borrowers' ability to afford loans.

Obtained Guilty Plea From Woman Who Operated Sophisticated Loan Scam. In May 2009, Brown obtained a guilty plea from Anna Santos, 22, who used forged documents to convince more than 100 desperate homeowners to hand over an average of $3,000 for non-existent loan modification services.

Shut Down 'Foreclosure Freedom' And Announced Arrest Of Two Loan Modification Scam Artists. In March 2009, Brown shut down Foreclosure Freedom, a fraudulent loan modification company that continued to collect fees and mortgage payments from dozens of homeowners without ever providing loan modification services. The two scam artists were charged with 24 counts of grand theft and 25 counts of foreclosure consultant statute violations.

Broke Up 'First Gov' And Sent Five Members To Prison. In November 2008, Brown shut down First Gov, a company that demanded $1,500 to $5,000 in up-front fees to modify loans it never renegotiated. In March 2009, five members of the ring were sentenced to a total of 18 years in prison.

Ended 'Federal Land Grant' Foreclosure Rescue Scam. In May 2008, Brown ended a scam in which hundreds of homeowners were convinced to pay $10,000 to place their property in a land grant, a phony and worthless real estate document, and then convinced to sign over the deed to their home.

Shut Down Six Predatory Lending Companies. In March 2008, Brown shut down Lifetime Financial, Nations Mortgage, Greenleaf Lending, Virtual Escrow, Olympic Escrow and Direct Credit Solutions for promising homeowners unrealistically low mortgage payments and then switching them to loans that did not match the original agreement, many with hidden fees of up to $20,000. The three scam artists who operated the scheme have been sentenced to three years in prison.

A copy of the complaint is attached.

Oakland – Following more than two dozen undercover sting operations, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today sued Maurice Irving Glad and his 22 California Midas auto shops to stop a “massive bait- and-switch scam” in which customers were offered cheap brake specials and then charged hundreds of dollars more for unnecessary repairs.

The undercover operations revealed that over four years Glad’s Midas shops regularly advertised $79 to $99 brake specials to draw customers in and then charged another $110 to $130 for unnecessary brake rotor resurfacing services – and hundreds of dollars more for repairs that were not needed or never performed.

The suit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, seeks $222 million in civil penalties, costs and reimbursements to customers.

“These Midas shops were running a massive bait-and-switch scam, in which customers were lured in with the promise of cheap brake specials and then charged hundreds more for unnecessary repairs,” Brown said. “This investigation revealed a shady and deceptive operation that violated the trust of its customers.”

Brown’s lawsuit, filed jointly with Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff and Fresno County District Attorney Elizabeth A. Egan, involves 22 Midas shops in Campbell, Clovis, Concord, Dublin, Fremont, Fresno, Hayward, Manteca, Merced, Modesto, San Jose, San Leandro, Turlock and Walnut Creek.

The lawsuit follows a four-year California Bureau of Automotive Repair investigation into Glad and his Midas shops to monitor compliance with a 1989 Alameda County Superior Court injunction. The 1989 injunction prohibited Glad’s shops from performing unnecessary repairs, charging for services not performed, or using scare tactics to convince customers to purchase unnecessary parts and services.

Undercover agents, posing as customers, conducted approximately 30 sting operations at Midas shops owned by Glad. In total, there were more than 35 incidents in which shop managers, mechanics and employees made false or misleading statements to pressure customers to purchase unnecessary parts and services.

On average, the shops charged undercover agents almost $300 in unnecessary brake rotor resurfacings, brake drum repairs, brake adjustments, brake cleaning services and other services. For example:

• In May 2007, at a Dublin Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the car needed thicker, more expensive brake pads than what was advertised. This was despite the fact that the manufacturer listed the advertised brake pads as a direct replacement. The agent was also told that the car’s new rotors “could be saved” if they were resurfaced and was charged for the removal of all four wheels when only three wheels were removed for inspection. In total, the agent was charged almost $400.

• In June 2006, at a Clovis Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the front rotors needed to be resurfaced, a brake fluid flush was needed and the rear brakes required adjustment, when in fact, none of the repairs was necessary. The agent was charged over $275 for the unnecessary repairs, including the brake fluid flush that was never performed.

• In May 2006, at a Merced Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the rear brakes required replacement and adjustment when they did not, and that the rotors required resurfacing when they were new and not in need of any service. The agent was charged $320.

• In April 2006, at a Fresno Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the front rotors should be resurfaced because of “a safety issue” when the rotors were new and in good condition, had no scoring or hot spots, were within factory specifications and were not in need of resurfacing. The agent was charged over $230 for the unnecessary repairs.

• In October 2005, at another Modesto Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the struts were “completely blown” and “leaking a lot of oil,” that two of the rotors and brake pads needed to be replaced and that the other two rotors needed to be resurfaced at a cost of over $1,700. None of the repairs or services was necessary.

• In October 2005, at a Clovis Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the front rotors should be resurfaced and a transmission fluid flush should be performed when the rotors were new and within manufacturer’s specifications and the automatic transmission had just been flushed and refilled. The shop charged over $230 for the unnecessary repairs.

• In September 2005, at a Modesto Midas shop, an undercover agent was informed that the brakes needed to be adjusted and cleaned and a brake and cooling system flush was required, when in fact, none of the services was necessary. The agent was charged over $200 and the brake flush was never performed.

In July 2008, the California Bureau of Automotive Repair referred the case to Brown’s Office for prosecution. Alameda County District Attorney Orloff and Fresno County District Attorney Egan joined due to the large number of shops operating in their counties.

Brown, Orloff and Egan are suing Glad and his 22 Midas shops for:
• False and misleading advertising in violation of Business and Professions Code 17500;
• Unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code 17200; and
• Breaking the 1989 Alameda County Superior Court injunction in violation of Business and Professions Code 17535.5 and 17207.

If successful, the lawsuit would require these Midas shops to pay up to $222 million in penalties, costs and reimbursements to customers. This includes up to $1 million, or $2,500 per violation, for false and misleading advertising; up to $1 million, or $2,500 per violation, for unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices; and up to $220 million, or $12,000 per violation, for violating the 1989 injunction.

The lawsuit also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting these shops from:
• Coercing its customers into buying unnecessary motor vehicle repairs or services;
• Making or authorizing false and misleading statements; and
• Obtaining payment for repairs or services that were not performed or for retail products that were not provided.

Consumers who believe they have been ripped off by an auto repair facility can file a complaint with the California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Automotive Repair online at: www.autorepair.ca.gov or by calling 1-800-952-5210.

The following Midas shops are named in today’s lawsuit:

• 1236 White Oaks Road, Campbell
• 704 Clovis Avenue, Clovis
• 2525 Monument Boulevard, Concord
• 6955 Village Parkway, Dublin
• 4045 Thornton Avenue, Fremont
• 3741 Washington Boulevard, Fremont
• 7340 N. Blackstone Avenue, Fresno
• 3937 N. Blackstone Avenue, Fresno
• 4304 W. Shaw Avenue, Fresno
• 1078 La Playa Drive, Hayward
• 24659 Mission Boulevard, Hayward
• 1412 W. Yosemite Avenue, Manteca
• 1420 V Street, Merced
• 338 McHenry Avenue, Modesto
• 3833 McHenry Avenue, Modesto
• 93 S. Capitol Avenue, San Jose
• 4224 Monterey Highway, San Jose
• 5287 Prospect Road, San Jose
• 2200 Stevens Creek Boulevard, San Jose
• 13745 E. 14th Street, San Leandro
• 2651 Geer Road, Turlock
• 2710 N. Main Street, Walnut Creek

Midas is one of the world’s largest providers of automotive services with more than 1,600 franchised and company-owned locations in the United States.

Today’s lawsuit, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, is attached.

Pleasanton, Calif. – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today sued the City of Pleasanton to remove its “draconian and illegal” limit on new housing, a significant cause of traffic congestion, air pollution and urban sprawl in the East Bay and Tri-Valley area.

“Pleasanton’s draconian and illegal limit on new housing forces people to commute long distances, adding to the bumper-to-bumper traffic along 580 and 680 and increasing dangerous air pollution,” Brown said. “It’s time for Pleasanton to balance its housing and its jobs and take full advantage of its underutilized land and proximity to BART.”

Brown today filed a motion to intervene in Alameda County Superior Court that would force Pleasanton to lift its housing cap. The suit was initially filed by the nonprofit group Public Advocates on October 17, 2006.

In 1996, Pleasanton adopted Measure GG, which imposed a strict, permanent cap of 29,000 total housing units within the city. At the time, Pleasanton had 21,180 homes, apartments and condominiums. The cap, therefore, allowed fewer than 8,000 new housing units to be built within city limits, regardless of demand or state law requirements.

The City is now on the verge of adopting a General Plan update, which calls for the creation of 45,000 additional jobs by 2025, while retaining the 29,000 limit on housing. This, Brown contends, violates state law, which requires every California city to provide sufficient housing to accommodate its fair share of regional needs.
The State requires Pleasanton to provide 3,277 additional housing units between 2007 and 2014. The cap, however, allows for only 2,000 more to be built – and that does not account for additional housing which will likely be required after 2014.

In the past 10 years, job growth in Pleasanton has nearly doubled -- from 31,683 to more than 58,000. Yet, the number of new housing units has not kept pace with demand. This is despite the fact that there is ample land for development, including property adjacent to the Pleasanton BART station. Unless the city lifts its housing cap, this and other land near transit will most likely not be utilized for housing.

As a result of the cap, many workers have been unable to find affordable housing within Pleasanton. A 2005 Association of Bay Area Governments study found that 79 percent of Pleasanton’s 58,000 employees lived outside Pleasanton, and their commutes can take two hours per day or more.

Brown’s suit demands that Pleasanton’s housing cap be repealed – so that jobs and housing can increase in proportion with each other.

In his suit, Brown contends that:

• Pleasanton is violating state law by enforcing a housing cap that prevents the City from accommodating its fair share of the regional housing need, as required by state housing element law (Gov. Code §65583.).

• Pleasanton’s housing cap violates the state constitution, which prohibits cities from adopting ordinances that conflict with state law.

• Pleasanton’s general plan is internally inconsistent, in violation of California Government Code Section 65300.5. The City’s existing land use element contains the housing cap limit of 29,000 housing units, while its housing element recognizes that the cap must be addressed because it prevents the City from meeting its fair share of regional housing needs.

If Pleasanton continues to enforce its housing cap, the consequences for the region include:

• Increased traffic congestion and longer commute times. Interstate 580 has some of the longest commute times in the region, with evening eastbound commuters delayed 7,410 hours and morning westbound commuters delayed 5,120 hours in 2007.

• Urban sprawl. Communities outside of Pleasanton will continue to lose farmland and open space to accommodate Pleasanton’s workers. These communities will have to build more schools, fire and police stations to keep up with anticipated growth.

• Increased greenhouse gas emissions. More people will be commuting for longer periods and over greater distances. Pleasanton’s CO2 output was 1.388 million tons in 2008. When the City is projected to reach 105,000 jobs in 2025, it is estimated its CO2 output will increase to 1.940 million tons. The increase is the equivalent of adding 120,000 cars to the road every year.

• Increased dependence on foreign oil.

Transportation is the largest contributor to California’s greenhouse gas emissions. The California Air Resources Board estimates that transportation is currently responsible for 38 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Transportation accounts for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the Bay Area.

Brown has reached several agreements and settlements with local governments and businesses across California to help them reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Some of his actions include:

• A landmark settlement with San Bernardino County which established a greenhouse gas reduction plan that identifies sources of emissions and sets reduction targets.

• An agreement with Stockton requiring it to identify and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, permit construction of thousands of new residential units within its current city limits, develop a rapid transit bus system and require all new buildings to be energy efficient.

• An agreement with ConocoPhillips that offsets greenhouse gases attributable to an oil refinery expansion in Contra Costa County.

An agreement with the Port of Los Angeles that identifies and reduces greenhouse gas emissions generated from port operations.

Brown’s suit against the City of Pleasanton is attached.