Mark Lutz Claims He Signed 'On Behalf Of Salt Marsh' But No One Seems To Know Where The Original Is

from the of-course-not dept

You may remember last month that yet another court investigating the actions of Team Prenda (this time in Northern California) had ordered Prenda's Paul Duffy (who is representing AF Holdings in the case as a recent replacement for Brett Gibbs) to produce the original version of a document filed last year in the case, which was supposedly "signed" by "Salt Marsh."
This is kind of important, because everyone is now claiming that "Salt Marsh" is a trust that owns AF Holdings, but a trust can't sign anything. The court granted some extra time, but both Paul Duffy and Mark Lutz have submitted declarations on the matter. First up, Mark Lutz, in which he claims that the "Salt Marsh" signature is his own, sorta:
Mr. Gibbs also from time to time sent me certifications to sign on behalf of AF Holdings stating that I am familiar with ADR policies. My practice was to sign those certifications on behalf of the Salt Marsh Trust and return them to Mr. Gibbs.
That's about all that's in there. Of course, I'm not sure if this means he "signed" the name Salt Marsh or he signed his own name on behalf of Salt Marsh, or if nobody signed a damn thing and a document was sloppily submitted with a claimed signature of Salt Marsh. Note that Lutz does not produce the actual signed document.

So, moving on to Paul Duffy, he claims that since he came onto the case after all this happened, he doesn't have the document, and he has no reason to have the document. It's the "what? that's not my problem!" defense:
Due to the date of my appearance in this matter, I have no knowledge of the filings of AF Holdings, LLC's ADR certification in this matter.
Duffy also notes that since he and Gibbs are both subject to Judge Wright's order down in Southern California, he reached out to Gibbs via their respect attorneys to see if Gibbs had the document:
Philip W. Vineyard, my attorney... was advised by Andrew Waxler, attorney for Mr. Gibbs.. that Mr. Gibbs states that he does not have possession of the signed ADR certification.
So, Lutz doesn't have it. Duffy doesn't have it. Gibbs doesn't have it. Of course not. Duffy then points out that whoever did the filing is responsible for it:
Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(c)(4), the ECF user, rather than the user's law firm, retains full responsibility for any document filed through the ECF filer's user ID and password.
This seems like it's Duffy (again) throwing Gibbs under the bus, since Gibbs filed the actual documents. Let's see how the court reacts to all of this.



Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Nobody, 14 May 2013 @ 4:35am

    This may be an attempt to win a battle, but Duffy is not thinking about the war (surprise, surprise). Gibbs does not appear to be the mastermind behind this operation. The Feds will be tempted to use Gibbs in order to go over the more culpable parties. Lutz and Duffy have made it MUCH more tempting for Gibbs to turn on them. Not smart at all!

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.