10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLPWENDY M. MANTELL (SBN 225544)SARAH G. HARTMAN (SBN 281751)1840 Century Park East, 19th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90067Telephone: (310) 586-7700Facsimile: (310)586-7800Email: mantellw@gtlaw.com;

hartmans@gtlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant eNom, Inc.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

GARY KURTZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ENOM, Inc., A.J. Weberman, Daniel Ben-Tzion and Bentzion Daniel, and Does 1 to50, inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. LC094563

[Assigned to Honorable Huey P. Cotton, Dept.D]

NOTICE OF RULING ON MOTION TOSET ASIDE DEFAULT, MOTION TODISMISS AND MOTION TO QUASH TRO

Date: November 9,2012Time: 8:30 a.m.

Date Action Filed: August 15, 2011

NOTICE OF RULINGLA 130.564,624v1 11-9-12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 9, 2012, at 8:30 a.m., in Department D of the

above-entitled Court, located at 6230 Sylmar Avenue, Van Nuys, California 91401, the Honorable Huey

P. Cotton presiding, the Court issued a ruling on Defendant's Motion to Vacate 6/26/12 Default, Motion

to Dismiss and Motion to Quash the Temporary Restraining Order. Sarah Hartman from Greenberg

Traurig, LLP appeared on behalf of Defendant eNom, Inc. ("eNom"). Plaintiff Gary Kurtz ("Plaintiff)

appeared on behalf of himself.

The Court granted the Motion to Vacate the 6/26/12 Default and the Motion to Dismiss

Defendant Bernis, and determined the Motion to Quash to be moot. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a

true and correct copy of the Judge's ruling. A status conference for the remaining parties is scheduled

for May 8, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. in Department D of the above-entitled Court.

DATED: November 9, 2012 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

By:Wendy M. MantellAttorney for Defendant, eNom, Inc.

NOTICE OF RULINGLA 130.564,624v1 11-9-12

SET ASIDE DEFAULT/DISMISS/QUASH TRO

Calendar: Department DDate: 11-9-12 (Continued from 10/19/12)

Case Name: Kurtz v. Enom, Inc., et al.Case No: LC 094 563

Moving Party: Berm'sResponding Party: Kurtz

Relief Requested1) Motion to Vacate the 6/26/12 Default2) Motion to Dismiss3) Motion to Quash the Temporary Restraining Order

RULINGS: l)-2) - Granted; 3) - Moot.

FactsOn 7/19/10, the Court (Kaddo) entered a judgment in favor of Kurtz as against... [Kurtz v.Weberman (LC 084 486)]. Kurtz alleges defendants failed to pay on the judgment, and nowseeks a judgment forcing the sale of property for satisfaction of the judgment, and injunctiverelief involving the proprietary rights of certain Internet domain names.

ChronologyOn 8/15/11, Kurtz filed a complaint for Equitable and Injunctive Relief.

On 8/17/11, the Court granted the ex parte application for temporary restraining orderagainst defendant Enom, Inc.

On 6/26/12, the clerk entered a default against David Bernis.

Discussion:The subject action constitutes an exercise in improper forum shopping. The Court is nowaware that Plaintiff Kurtz has initiated at least three complaints involving the subject partiesand claims.

The first action was initiated in Department I (Kaddo) on 2/20/09 [Kurtz v, Weberman (LC

084 486)], when Kurtz filed a complaint for Defamation, False Light-Invasion of Privacy,Unfair Business Practices, and Injunction. The action ultimately led to a 7/19/10 defaultjudgment for $1,500,000 against A.J. Weberman, Daniel Ben-Tzion, and Bentzion Daniel.

On 8/15/11, Kurtz filed the instant complaint for Equitable and Injunctive Relief seeking toenforce said judgment against David Bemis [Complaint

On 12/30/1 1, Kurtz filed a third action in Department T (Stratton) for Defamation, FalseLight, Invasion of Privacy, Unfair Business Practices, and Injunction [Kurtz v. Bernis (LC095 923)]. Paragraph 4 of the complaint specifically alleges that the "subject matter in thisaction was the subject matter of a previous action entitled Kurtz v. Weberman, LASC CaseNo. LC 084 486. ..that resulted in a judgment for Kurtz..."

On 7/16/12, Judge Stratton granted Bernis' motion to quash service of the summons andcomplaint based on a finding that the Court lacked jurisdiction, and dismissed the entireaction.

The court dockets shows that no notice of related cases in any of the subject actions wereever filed. Hence, Plaintiff Kurtz needs to file a notice of related cases in all actions, withthe earliest case, Department I, deciding whether the cases are related and therefore subjectto reassignment.

As noted above, on 7/16/12, Judge Stratton granted Bernis' motion to quash service of thesummons and complaint based on a finding that the Court lacked jurisdiction, and dismissedthe entire action against Bernis. This Court takes judicial notice of Judge Stratton's order[Evidence Code §452(d)]. That ruling applies to the subject action on the doctrines of resjudicata and collateral estoppel, and therefore bars Kurtz from collaterally challenging theorder of Judge Stratton. Therefore,on the court's own motion, the court vacates the 6/26/12default entered against Bernis and dismisses all claims as against Bernis based on the resjudicata and collateral estoppel effect of Judge Stratton's finding of lack of jurisdiction overBernis.

The motion is otherwise moot. On 8/1 7/1 1 , the Court granted the ex parte application fortemporary restraining order against defendant Enom, Inc. The Court records indicates noentry of a preliminary or permanent injunction after a series of continuiances. Without courtextension, a motion for temporary restraining order dissolves [CCP §527].

Supplemental Ruling:During oral argument on 10-19-12, Plaintiff argued that Judge Stratton's ruling,which found that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over Bernis, could not bar theinstant action because this court has general jurisdiction (and or in rem) jurisdictionover the property at issue. Plaintiff cites no authority for his position. The court findsno exception to the rule in Shaffer v Heitner (1977) 433 US 186, 207 that something

more than presence of the property in this state is required to extend to jurisdictionover the person of the property owner. Indeed, Judge Stratton's ruling relies, in part,on Bernis' declaration stating that he does not own property in California. On thisadditional basis, the motion to dismiss as to Bernis is Granted.