Motions for Sanctions Against Stanford University in MedWhat case

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 26th, 2019, at 9:30 AM, or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard in Department 302 of the above-entitled Court, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Arturo Devesa ("Devesa", Movant) will and hereby do move to impose sanctions, jointly and severally, against Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Caixa Capital Rise ("Caixa"), Magic Stone Alternative Investments ("Magic Stone"), Regent Capital Venture Ltd. ("Regent"}, Stanford-StartX Fund, LLC ("Stanford-StartX"), and Startcaps Ventures ("Startcaps") (collectively, 'Plaintiffs"), as well as Cross-Defendant THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY ("Stanford University"), which is the legal entity running Plaintiff Stanford-StartX Fund LLC, as well as their attorney Bahram Seyedin-Noor ("Noor") and Bryan Ketroser ("Ketroser").

This Motion is made on the grounds that each allegation and claim in Complaint fails to meet the statutory requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 128.5 and/or 128. 7 and is based on rumors and beliefs without any evidence provided on the following bases:

1. Paragraphs 38 and 70, state "Never an entity called Massive Investment" invested in MedWhat's Series A; the fact is Massive Investments did invest $400,000, see Complaint Answer's APPENDIX with copies of Massive Investments $400,000 Preferred Shares submitted in June 2018, and this has been proven multiple times to be false in Writ Attachment Devesa won and Stanford lost. Opposing Counsel has refused repeatedly nevertheless for the last year to remove those statements. Paragraphs 38 and 70 of the Complaint have been demonstrated with documents and proof in Complaint's Answer to be false as investor Massive Investments is an investor in MedWhat, and therefore Paragraphs 38 and 70 are not relevant to any of the asserted Causes of Action but instead are "made in bad faith" and "frivolous" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ("CCP") § 128.S(a)) and "presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass" (CCP § 128.7(b)(I)). Opposing Counsel still refuses to remove "Massive Investments" statements because they know it destroys their entire fraud case against Devesa. See Complaint Answer's APPENDIX with Massive Investment's Cibo Australia fund $400,000 investment.

2. Paragraph 35 states "Soliciting investment in a MedWhat Series A round investment" this is false. Chinese investor Regent approached Devesa saying Regent Capital wanted to invest in MedWhat given MedWhat's new technology deal with Stanford Hospital. See Writ Attachment Appendix. Paragraph 35 is "made in bad faith" and "frivolous" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ("CCP") § 128.S(a)) and "presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass" (CCP § 128.7(b)(I)).

3. Paragraph 36 says "Despite Devesa's continuous efforts through October and November of 2016 to secure Regent's participation, in MedWhat's Series A, Regent ultimately did not agree to invest in the Series A" That's an entire inaccurate and false statement as can be seen in emails and documents shown in Writ Opposition showing Chinese investor Regent agreeing to invest in MedWhat's Series A in November 2016, and subsequently sending in January 2017 two investment confirmations confirming funding. Paragraph 36 of the Complaint have been demonstrated in Writ Attachment Appendixes to be false as Regent did agree to invest in MedWhat, and therefore Paragraphs 36 is not relevant to any of the asserted Causes of Action but instead are "made in bad faith" and "frivolous" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ("CCP") § 128.S(a)) and "presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass" (CCP § 128.7(b)(I)). Opposing Counsel still refuses to remove "did not agree to invest in the Series A" statements because they know it destroys their entire frivolous fraud case against Devesa.

4. Paragraphs 42-43 fails to mention and omits on purpose, for the sake of making a claim that has no basis, that the investment confirmation by Regent confirming funding was done BEFORE Stanford-StartX Fund LLC funded investment. See Appendix. No deceit exists as Devesa had investment funding confirmation from BOTH Massive Investments and Chinese firm Regent Capital. Therefore Paragraphs 42-43 are made to mislead about the existence of Deceit claim and are not relevant to any of the asserted Causes of Action but instead are "made in bad faith" and "frivolous" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ("CCP") § 128.S(a)) and "presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass" (CCP § 128.7(b)(I)). Opposing Counsel still refuses to write in Complaint that both Series A investors confirmed funding BEFORE Stanford funded investment because they know it cancels the fraud & deceit claim against Devesa.

5. Paragraphs 42 statement "Regent would not be participating in Series A" is not what appeared in the email, Plaintiffs do not provide any factual evidence Regent said it would not participate in Series A,instead the email said Regent needed more time to fund the investment but never saying it wouldn't participate. Stanford and Alto Litigation manipulate that sentence to try to make a case of a fraud & deceit claim that doesn't exist, by quoting "As previously mentioned" - which was in the email sent to Devesa by Regent – and then Alto Litigation adding on top of that sentence "Regent would not be participating in Series A" in the claim which that statement was never part of the email. Complaint doesn't provide evidence Regent said it wouldn't be participating in Series A in any email in January or February of 2017. The only evidence Complaint provides is Regent asking for more time and restarting more due diligence and phone calls even though Devesa had already received an investment confirmation confirming funding. In this emails mentioned by Alto Litigation, Regent needed more time, a week after sending the investment confirmation, and noting that the Chinese holidays were coming and they would need time.Therefore sentence '"Regent would not be participating in Series A"  in Paragraph 42 is made to mislead about the existence of Fraud & Deceit claim and is not relevant to any of the asserted Causes of Action but instead are "made in bad faith" and "frivolous" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ("CCP") § 128.S(a)) and "presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass" (CCP § 128.7(b)(I)). Opposing Counsel still refuses to write in Complaint that there's no existence of any email from Regent from November 2016 to April 2016 and beyond saying Regent would not invest in MedWhat's Series A. Plaintiffs know it cancels entire Fraud claim and therefore refuse to remove false statements.

6. Paragraph 43 statement "At no time did Devesa correct in his January 19^th email that both Regent and Massive Investment had already funded", the reason Devesa never corrected this statement was because the statement was true there was no need to correct it as Massive Investments did fund the investment, and also there was no need because Regent Capital had already sent Devesa an investment confirmation confirming funding. Paragraph 43 should be removed. This paragraph is vexatious and made in bad faith to manipulates facts and build a false narrative to find a "Fraud and Deceit" claim which doesn't exist. Paragraph 43 is made to mislead about the existence of Fraud & Deceit claim and is not relevant to any of the asserted Causes of Action but instead are "made in bad faith" and "frivolous" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ("CCP") § 128.S(a)) and "presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass" (CCP § 128.7(b)(I)). Opposing Counsel still refuses to remove false statement.

7. Complaint's Count III in its entirety is false and fails to mention Regent Capital's website regentcapgroup.com redirects, as of August 3^rd, 2019, since 2018, directly to https://www.comper.com.cn/en/. Count III omits saying that Regent Capital has been at all times a fake venture capital firm, that in reality is Comper, a Chinese artificial intelligence company competing directly with MedWhat. Regent has been all along a Chinese front to steal intellectual property from MedWhat as an American legitimate investor. A google search for regentcapgroup.com redirects directly to comper.com. This is why Regent mislead MedWhat into thinking it was making a Series A investment, in order to have unfair access to proprietary MedWhat technology being built by Devesa at Stanford Hospital. Regent knew from the beginning it was lying to MedWhat about a Series A investment agreement, investment confirmation, and leading on for almost a year 'needing more time', in order to have constantly access to additional MedWhat information as part of a never-ending game of additional due diligence. Count III is made to mislead about the existence of Fraud & Deceit claim and is not relevant to any of the asserted Causes of Action but instead are "made in bad faith" and "frivolous" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ("CCP") § 128.S(a)) and "presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass" (CCP § 128.7(b)(I)). Opposing Counsel still refuses to remove false statement.

8. Complaint's Count IV Unfair Competition in its entirety is false. Allegations Linda Healthcare is not part of MedWhat are false. Paragraphs 48-50 are used to harass MedWhat by saying Linda Healthcare Corp is a separate corporation. Linda Healthcare is part of MedWhat.com,Inc., it's public knowledge Linda is owned by MedWhat.com,Inc. and a product line of MedWhat. Count IV is not relevant to any of the asserted Causes of Action but instead are "made in bad faith" and "frivolous" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ("CCP") § 128.S(a)) and "presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass" (CCP § 128.7(b)(I)). Opposing Counsel still refuses to remove false statement. Illegal Competition claims are asserted against Devesa even though Complaint fails even to attempt to describe any wrongful conduct by either individual; hence, such claims are "presented for an improper purpose" (CCP § 128.7(b)(l)).

9. Count V Unjust Enrichment is made vexatiously and made to hide Stanford's SEC violations. Count V fails to state Stanford received Preferred shares in MedWhat in exchange for an investment based on the investment confirmation of Massive Investements and Regent Capital. A legal exchange. MedWhat has no legal contract with Stanford University to follow their internal rule of owning only 10% of equity of MedWhat.com,Inc.and StartX's companies. This by word of mouth 10% ownership rule by Stanford is done order for Stanford not having to report equity ownership to the Securities Exchange Commission of MedWhat under the 10% equity ownership disclosure rules. Stanford doesn't want to attract the attention of the SEC as a shareholder of Stanford-StartX Fund LLC companies like MedWhat and owning temporarily more than 10% equity in MedWhat caused by Regent's deceit of Devesa. Stanford's ownership in MedWhat is dangerous to Stanford's tax-exemption and SEC rules and disclosures. MedWhat paid dividends to Stanford and given Stanford's illicit Fund structure such dividend violates Stanford's tax-exemption. Counts V is therefore not relevant to any of the asserted Causes of Action but instead are "made in bad faith" and "frivolous" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ("CCP") § 128.S(a)) and "presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass" (CCP § 128.7(b)(I)). Opposing Counsel still refuses to remove false statement.

10. Count VI claim fails to state any violation or damage. It simply states MedWhat has company records. Counts VI is therefore not relevant to any of the asserted Causes of Action but instead are "made in bad faith" and "frivolous" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ("CCP") § 128.S(a)) and "presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass" (CCP § 128.7(b)(I)). Opposing Counsel still refuses to remove false statement.

11. Count I, II, III, fail to state Stanford-StartX Fund LLC is a shell company with no bank accounts, offices, or real employees and has shut down. Counts fail to state: (1) Plaintiff Stanford-StartX Fund LLC is educational non-profit Stanford University, (2) Alto Litigation's Mr. Noor and Mr. Ketroser client and point of contact during litigation have been Stanford University's General Counsel Debra Zumwalt, and Stanford University's Stanford Management Company endowment Robert Wallace, the two Stanford officers of the Stanford-StartX Fund LLC according to State of Delaware Division of Corporations (3) retainers and legal fees paid to Alto Litigation are paid by Stanford University under the bank account name THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFODR JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, same bank account MedWhat received all investments, (4) Plaintiffs Caixa Capital, Regent Capital, Startcaps, Magic Stone, do not pay retainers fees to Alto Litigation, their fees instead being paid during this long litigation by Stanford University in order to recruit foreign investors and artificially inflate the number of Plaintiffs in a frivolous lawsuit in which foreign investors are not educated enough about American law system to realize they were tricked by Stanford. Stanford University has used these investors to attack MedWhat and protect their tax-exemption and hide IRS violations. For more than a year Plaintiffs except Stanford have not attacked MedWhat and are held hostage by Stanford. These omissions are "made in bad faith" and "frivolous" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ("CCP") § 128.S(a)) and "presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass" (CCP § 128.7(b)(I)).

12. Count I Breach of Contract contains false statements and omissions. Allegations Stanford-StartX Fund LLC's Sabrina Liang, Stanford University Director of School Funds, and Fletcher, alleged Stanford-StartX Fund LLC, didn't convert notes are false. Count omits saying Sabrina Liang sign the conversion of the notes under the approval of Stanford-StartX Fund LLC manager Suzanne Fletcher. See Writ Attachment Opposition Appendixes and Cross-Complaint showing emails from Fletcher, and emails and Contract signatures from Liang, authorizing the conversion of all convertible notes into equity. Breach of Contract is a baseless accusation given Plaintiffs signing the conversion of the notes in 2016, two years before bringing forward any claim of breach of contract. Count I is brought forward to force MedWhat into bankruptcy and hide Stanford University's IRS tax-exemption violations in which MedWhat is a witness and evidence of. These omissions are "made in bad faith" and "frivolous" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ("CCP") § 128.S(a)) and "presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass" (CCP § 128.7(b)(I)).

13. Complaint, throughout all counts, contains false statements stating Stanford-StartX Fund LLC is operated by Stanford-StartX Fund LLC, when such entity it's a shell company with no employees. The Fund manager from 2014-2019 has been advertised to Devesa as being Suzanne Fletcher. In Writ Attachment, Alto Litigation's Mr. Noor, under perjury, states Fletcher had no authority as Manager of Stanford-StartX Fund LLC and that the endowment are the active managers, contradicting previous statements in Demurrers that no Stanford employee was involved in the Stanford-StartX Fund LLC operations. The Stanford endowment is an IRS tax-exempt organization and can not operate actively venture capital fund Stanford-StartX Fund LLC. Opposing Counsel has used both sides of the coin numerous times under perjury to dishonestly mislead court. These statements and omissions are "made in bad faith" and "frivolous" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ("CCP") § 128.S(a)) and "presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass" (CCP § 128.7(b)(I)).

14. Accounting Count seeks information that is neither relevant to any claim, provides no damages suffered by Plaintiffs, has no legal basis for lawsuit, and done explicit only purpose of harassment and to have access to private information. Plaintiffs admit they aren't shareholders to MedWhat, but simultaneously say they are shareholders for the purpose to have access to private company records. This count is overly broad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive, and ambiguous. Calls for information that is subject to attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other applicable privilege, protection, or right afforded by state law; and seeks confidential, trade secret, proprietary, financial, or commercially sensitive documents and information, the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of the constitutionally-protected right of privacy or could result in substantial competitive injury by Plaintiffs investors in Sensely and breach of an obligation to another to maintain such information as confidential to only equity friendly investors of MedWhat. These statements and omissions are "made in bad faith" and "frivolous" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ("CCP") § 128.S(a)) and "presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass" (CCP § 128.7(b)(I)).

15. Anti-SLAPP is anti-constitutional and is not a legal basis for Alto Litigation, Mr. Noor, and Mr. Ketroser to lie to a Federal Regulatory Agency like Colorado Division of Securities and hiding from the Colorado Agency that Stanford University and Alto Litigation had a lawsuit against Devesa and failing to mention existing litigation of private legal dispute against Devesa. This is abuse of process and illegal under Federal laws. On the other hand, Devesa has been upfront with the Department of Justice and IRS of an ongoing lawsuit with Stanford University and then whistleblowed evidence that Stanford University violated tax-exemption by wiring Devesa's MedWhat money and was money laundering via Stanford-StartX Fund LLC. These statements in regards Colorado Securities and omissions are "made in bad faith" and "frivolous" (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ("CCP") § 128.S(a)) and "presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass" (CCP § 128.7(b)(I)).

16. Opposing Counsel Ketroser committed wire fraud and money laundering by admitting via email to Devesa that Stanford-StartX Fund LLC has no bank account of its own and demanding Devesa wire $11,000 sanction for Stanford-StartX Fund LLC to Ketroser's personal business bank account at Alto Lit to hide from the IRS tax-exemption violations done by his client Stanford University. Mr. Ketroser and Alto Litigation are in violation of USC 7201,7206 and 18 US CODE § 1343 and hiding Stanford's for the same.

The above violations are perjuries committed by Mr. Noor and Mr. Ketroser, knowing full well they were lying to the Court.

Despite Plaintiffs having had the required 21-day safe harbor period, a full year in fact, within which to amend its Complaint to remove the bad faith, frivolous, improper and unmeritorious allegations and claims, Plaintiffs and their counsel have failed to do so, causing Movants to incur fees and costs to file this motion and previous Writ of Attachment Opposition. The sanctions sought by this Motion are: (1) an order from the Court (a) striking paragraphs 35, 36-38, 42-43 and 70 of the Complaint as to Defendant Devesa, (b) dismissing Counts 2-6 as to Defendant Devesa and (2) an award of reasonable fees and costs in the anticipated amount of $88,543 against Stanford-StartX Fund LLC. Movants' Motion for Sanctions is based upon this Notice, the accompanying  Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Arturo Devesa in Support of Motions for Sanctions filed herewith, the [Proposed] Order, all other supporting papers and documents on file with the Court, the record in this action, and such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at or prior to the hearing.

Dated July 27th, 2019