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
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.