Attorney (Marshack Hays LLP); entered post-petition (2023).
Bankruptcy-fraud architect
Supports the claim that any TopDevz counsel authority had to trace to valid manager authority, not merely to Davis acting as a member or judgment creditor.
The agreement defines Majority of Members, says the business is managed by the Manager, and limits member-manager removal to a vote of all other members.TopDevz Operating Agreement Consolidated Appendix Vol. 6, Ex. 79, Bates 2337, 2342, 2354-2356 Open record
Supports the claim that Hays adopted the same TopDevz/Davis authority chain in bankruptcy while relying on arbitration findings and the asserted manager change.
The motion identifies Hays as counsel for judgment creditors TopDevz and Davis and says the January 6 ruling made Davis manager.Bankr. ECF 19 motion to appoint trustee or convert Consolidated Appendix Vol. 7, Ex. 89, Bates 2561-2593 Open record
Supports a timeline of communications among estate counsel, Hays, and Carpenter about Davis/TopDevz matters and related state-court actions.
Fee entries reference calls or emails with E. Hays and S. Carpenter about resolution options and state-court appearances.FTRL fee applications Consolidated Appendix Vol. 8, Ex. 90, Bates 3001, 3052-3054, 3155-3156, 3198-3199 Open record
Supports the claim that Hays's TopDevz authority traces through Carpenter and Davis rather than an independent TopDevz manager authorization.
The form identifies Hays as new attorney for Tyler Davis and TopDevz, with Carpenter as former representative.San Diego Superior Court substitution of attorney Consolidated Appendix Vol. 11, Ex. 111, Bates 4284-4286 Open record
Supports the claim that the challenged TopDevz authority chain continued after the issue was raised in appellate proceedings.
The Ninth Circuit filing identifies Hays/MHW as attorneys for appellees Tyler Davis and TopDevz.Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-8172 DE 33.1 and 40.1 Consolidated Appendix Vol. 13, Ex. 120, Bates 4532-4539 Open record
Adds the procedural anchor for the appeal narrative: the court denied ROA 151, while the later draft motion argues the seven-point procurement chain was not reached on the merits.
The minute order denies the motion to declare the proceeding or judgment void.Denial of ROA 151 motion to vacate San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2022-00026691, ROA 170 Open record
Gives readers the compact roadmap of the fraud-in-procurement theory: 2021 knowledge, no-vote authority, unauthorized TopDevz appearance, Davis declarations, and ROA 121.
The motion frames the issue as fraud in procurement of the judgment, not simple disagreement with the result.Rajaee motion to vacate judgment San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2022-00026691, ROA 182, pp. 16-19 Open record
Supports the factual dispute over authority by pairing Rajaee's sworn no-authorization statement with the Secretary of State page listing Rajaee for TopDevz.
Rajaee declared he never authorized Davis, Kirk, or Hays to represent TopDevz.Rajaee declaration ISO motion to vacate San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2022-00026691, ROA 183, pp. 1-5, 123 Open record
Shows the TopDevz authority issue was raised directly before the court treated Hays/MHW filings as TopDevz filings.
The motion asks the court to determine TopDevz authority before considering merits arguments supposedly made by TopDevz.Motion to determine entity authority and disqualify Hays/MHW San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2022-00026691, ROA 196, pp. 2-6 Open record
Shows Rajaee independently raised the same TopDevz authority objection and traced Hays's authority claim back to the challenged judgment and arbitration ruling.
The motion says Hays cannot use the judgment as the source of authority while that authority is disputed.Rajaee motion to disqualify Hays/MHW San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2022-00026691, ROA 203, pp. 1-6 Open record
The filing identifies Davis and TopDevz as joint creditors, offers $80,000 for the appellate rights, and asks the trustee to withdraw or the court to deny abandonment.
The opposition says the creditors offer to purchase or settle the claims for $80,000.Davis/TopDevz joint opposition to abandonment Bankr. S.D. Cal. No. 24-00617-CL7, ECF 211, pp. 1-5 Open record
Sanctions motion (9th Cir.)
Fraud on the court: the half-truths
Hays declaration
The bankruptcy maneuvers
Settlement motion (ECF 124)
The bankruptcy maneuvers
Conversion motion (ECF 19)
The bankruptcy maneuvers
Trustee contempt motion (Doc 580)
The bankruptcy maneuvers
Settlement approval order (ECF 159)
The bankruptcy maneuvers
Proposed abandonment (ECF 197)
The bankruptcy maneuvers
Davis/TopDevz opposition and $80,000 offer (ECF 211)
The bankruptcy maneuvers
Trustee sale motion (ECF 288)
The bankruptcy maneuvers
Defensive appellate rights sale order (ECF 543)
The bankruptcy maneuvers