10 u 12 | 13 | 4 15 16 17 | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 FFCL Paul R. Hejmanowski, Esq., NSB 94 Maximiliano D. Cowvillier II, Esq., NSB 7661 LIONEL SAWYER & COLLINS 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 1700 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: (702) 383-8888 / Fax: (702) 383-8845 phejmanowski@lionelsawyer.com meouvillier@lionelsawyer.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA JOSEPH BRAVO; DAVID Z. CHESNO! ) — CaseNo. AS36644 ECKLEY M. KEACH; CAPITALGROWTH_ =) DeptNo. XT LIMITED, INC,, a Nevada corporation; PUNTA) ARENA de la VENTANA, S.A. de C.V.,a ) Mexican corporation; and BOCA DE LA SALINA, ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND S.A. de C.V., a Mexican corporation, ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE: ) VILLAGRANS IN CONTEMPT Plaintifis, vs. CAPITAL GROWTH LLC, a Nevis limited liability company; and KERRY ROGERS, an individual, Defendants. ) ‘The Court held evidentiary hearings on December 10, 2010, and February 4, 2011, to determine: A) Whether Alvaro Villagran is in contempt of the Cours: (i) injunction order, initially entered on September 20, 2007, and becoming final on January 21, 2009 ("Injunction Order"); (ii) 06/22/10 Amended Order to Show Cause ("06/22/10 Order"); and (iii) 09/07/10 Order Setting Evidentiary Hearing And Compelling Alvaro Villagran to Appear and Order Continuing,Awe ww OSC ("09/07/10 Order"); and B) Whether J. Pedro Villagran and Ariel Villagran are in contempt of the Court's: (i) Injunetion Order; (ii) 09/07/10 Order; and (Jii) 12/28/10 Order Setting Evidentiary Hearing And Compelling Ariel Villagran and J. Pedro Villagran to Appear ("12/28/10 Order"). Collectively, Alvaro Villagran, J. Pedro Villagran and Ariel Villagran are referred to as the "Villagrans." The Court, having reviewed all papers on file, the evidence presented during the hearings and the extensive record of all prior proceedings before this Court, finds the following facts and makes the following conclusions of law: FINDINGS OF FACT ‘The Villagrans Are In Contempt ‘he Court's Injunction Order 1, The Villagrans have actual notice of the Injunction Order. 2, Among other things, the Injunction Order provides that defendant Kerry Rogers ("Rogers") and his agents, attorneys and those persons in active concert or participation with him ate restrained and enjoined: (@) from purporting fo have the authority to act as Director General of Punta or Boca from any time after February 5, 2007; (b) from purporting to have the authority to act for Punta or Boca from any time after February 5, 2007, as Director General or in any other position of authority; (©) to undo, revoke, cancel, destroy and/or void the transfer or conveyance of the Punta Property to Cihuata and restore actual and record ownership of the Punta Property to Punta by no later than within three calendar days of the date of this Judgment; (@) to undo, revoke, cancel, destroy and/or void the transfer or conveyance of the Boca Property to Cihuata and restore actual and record ownership of the Boca Property to Boca by no later ‘than within three calendar days of the date of this Judgment; (©) from commencing or prosecuting any action or legal proceeding in Mexico to (1) frustrate, delay, hinder, resist, oppose, challenge or otherwise litigate the return of the Punta Property to Punta and the retumn of the Boca Property to Boca; and/or (2) record the Cihuata Deed, finalize or otherwise complete the transfers of the Punta Property and Boca Property to Cihuata; (© to cease and desist any and all efforts to record, finalize 22 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 or otherwise complete the transfers of the Punta Property and Boca Property to Cihuata; (@) from marketing, conveying, encumbering or otherwise alienating any interest in the Punta Property or the Boca Property; (t) ‘to undo, revoke, cancel, destroy and/or void the conveyances to Cihuata of Founders’ Lots Ill through XII and to restore actual and record ownership of the Founders’ Lots Ill through XII to Cihuatan III, S.A. de. C.V., Cihuatan IV, S.A. de. C., Cihuatan V, S.A. de. C.V., Cihuatan VI, S.A. de, C.V., Cihuatan VU, S.A. de. C.V., Cihvatan VII, S.A. de. C.V., Cihuatan IX, S.A. de. C.V., Cibuatan X, 8.A. de. C.V., Cihuatan XI, S.A. de. C.V., and Cihuatan XII, S.A. de, C.V., respectively, by no later than within three calendar days of the date of this Judgment. 3. The Villagrans are subject to, and bound by, the Injunction Order. 4, The Villagrans are in active concert and participation with each other and with Rogers and are knowingly aiding and abetting Rogers in violating the Injunction Order. 5, The Villagrans are Rogers’ agents, and investors and partners with Rogers with respect fo the properties identified in the Injunction Order as the "Punta Property" and the "Boca Property," who stand to realize a significant windfall if those properties remain in Cihuata. 6. The Injunction Order spells out the details of compliance in clear, specific and unambiguous terms and the Villagrans readily know exactly the duties or obligations the Injunction Order imposes. 7. The Villagrans have the ability to comply with the Injunction Order. 8. The Villagrans have demonstrated a complete and knowing disregard for their obligations under the Injunction Order, 9. The Villagrans have not proven any legally cognizable defense to the contempt of the Court's Injunetion Order. 10. ‘There is clear and convincing evidence that the Villagrans are marketing the conveyance of the Punta Property and Boca Property. 11, There is clear and convincing evidence that the Villagrans are knowingly aiding 3s Caran 10 i 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2B 4 25 26 27 ges sue and abetting Rogers in marketing the conveyance of the Punta Property and Boca Property 12. There is clear and convincing evidence that the Villagrans are attempting to convey, transfer or encumber the Punta Property and Boca Property. 13, There is clear and convincing evidence that the Villagrans are knowingly aiding and abetting Rogers in attempting to convey, transfer or encumber the Punta Property and Boca Property, 14, There is clear and convincing evidence that the Villagrans are attempting to record the transfers of the Punta Property and Boca Property to Cihuata 15, There is clear and convincing evidence that the Villagrans are knowingly aiding and abetting Rogers in attempting to record the transfers of the Punta Property and Boca Property to Cihuata, 16, There is clear and convincing evidence that the Villagrans are knowingly and intentionally in violation of this Cour’s Injunction Order and that they are knowingly and intentionally in contempt of Court. 17, Tt appears by clear and convincing evidence that the Villagrans will not comply with this Court's Injunction Order unless they are compelled and/or sanctioned to do so. 18. A judgment of contempt should be issued against the Villagrans for violating the Court's Injunction Order. Alvaro Villagran Is In Contempt Of The Court's 06/22/10 Order 19, The 06/22/10 Order ordered Alvaro Villagran to appear before the Court on August 24, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. 20. Alvaro Villagran was served with, and had actual notice of, the 06/22/10 Order. 21. The 06/22/10 Order spells out the details of compliance in clear, specific and unambiguous terms and Alvaro Villagran readily knows exactly the duties or obligations theones sail | oe oo 06/22/10 Order imposes. 22. Alvaro Villagran did not appear before this Court on August 24, 2010, as ordered by the 06/22/10 Order. 23, Alvaro Villagran had the ability to comply with the 06/22/10 Order and appear on August 24, 2010, as compelled by the 06/22/10 Order. 24. Alvaro Villagran has demonstrated a complete and knowing disregard for his obligations under the 06/22/10 Order. 25. Alvaro Villagran has not proven any legally cognizable defense to the contempt of the Court's 06/22/10 Order. 26. A judgment of contempt should be issued against Alvaro Villagran for violating the Court's 06/22/10 Order. The Villagrans Are In Contempt Of The Court's 09/07/10 Order 27. The 09/07/10 Order ordered the Villagrans to appear before this Court on December 10, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. 28. The Villagrans were served with, and had actual notice of, the 09/07/10 Order. 29. The 09/07/10 Order spells out the details of compliance in clear, specific and unambiguous terms and the Villagrans readily know exactly the duties or obligations the 09/07/10 Order imposes. 30. The Villagrans did not appear before this Court on December 10, 2010, as ordered by the 09/07/10 Order. 31. The Villagrans had the ability to comply with the 09/07/10 Order and appear on December 10, 2010, as compelled by the 09/07/10 Order. 32. The Villagrans have demonstrated a complete and knowing disregard for their obligations under the 09/07/10 Order.10 Wl 12 13 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 26 27 easel 33. The Villagrans have not proven any legally cognizable defense to the contempt of the Court's 09/07/10 Order. 34, A judgment of contempt should be issued against the Villagrans for violating the Court's 09/07/10 Order. Ariel Villagran & J, Pedro Villagran Are In Contempt Of The Court's 12/28/10 Order 35. The 12/28/10 Order ordered J. Pedro Villagran and Ariel Villagran to appear before the Court on February 4, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. 36. J. Pedro Villagran and Ariel Villagran were served with, and had actual notice of, the 12/28/10 Order. Moreover, counsel for the Villagrans was present in Court on December 10, 2010, when the Court announced the terms of the 12/28/10 Order. 37. The 12/28/10 Order spells out the details of compliance in clear, specific and unambiguous terms and J, Pedro Villagran and Ariel Villagran readily know exactly their duties or obligations the 12/28/10 Order imposes. 38. J. Pedro Villagran and Ariel Villagran did not appear before this Court on February 4, 2011, as ordered by the 12/28/10 Order. 39. J. Pedro Villagran and Ariel Villagran had the ability to comply with the 12/28/10 Order and appear on February 4, 2011, as compelled by the 12/28/10 Order. 40. J. Pedro Villagran and Ariel Villagran have demonstrated a complete and knowing disregard for their obligations under the 12/28/10 Order. 41, J, Pedro Villagran and Ariel Villagran have not proven any legally cognizable defense to the contempt of the Court's 12/28/10 Order. 42. A judgment of contempt should be issued against J. Pedro Villagran and Ariel Villagran for violating the Court's Injunction and 12/28/10 Order. Wao 10 I 12 3 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 4 25 26 27 vege ‘The Court Has Personal Jurisdiction Over The Villagrans 43, The Villagrans purposefully injected themselves into Nevada and engaged in conduct outside of Nevada that was designed to, and did, have purpose and effect in Nevada, as follows: (@) The Villagrans hired and used Nevada attomey Cami Perkins and her Nevada law firm to facilitate the efforts to convey, transfer or encumber the Punta Property and Boca Property in violation of the Injunction Order. (b) _Atall times, the Villagrans hired and directed the seven different Nevada law firms who represented defendants in the above captioned litigation. (©) After the Court initially issued the Injunction Order, Alvaro Villagran met with Rogers in Las Vegas, Nevada, to discuss violating the Injunction Order. (@ After the Court issued the 01/25/08 Contempt Judgment, the Villagrans instructed Rogers to violate the Contempt Judgment, (©) After the Court issued the 02/13/08 Bench Warrant for Rogers’ arrest, the Villagrans financed Rogers' fugitive flight from Las Vegas, Nevada, to Latin American by funneling thousands of dollars to Rogers in Latin America through the Nevada law offices and ‘Nevada bank accounts of Cami Perkins, (J, Pedro Villagran and Alvaro Villagran have been litigating as parties in Nevada for well over a decade. Specifically, they are parties to Second Judicial District Court Case No. CV96-01296. (2) Alvaro Villagran’s efforts in Mexico to record the transfers of the Punta Property and Boca Property to Cihuata are in violation of the Court's Injunction Order and are designed to subvert the authority, dignity, integrity and decency of the Cours proceedings and the Nevada judicial process.10 u 12 B 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 a 22 23 4 25 26 27 cover san eed (h) Acting in concerted action with Rogers and the Nevada law office of Cami Perkins, Ariel Villagran, Alvaro Villagran and J. Pedro Villagran marketed, negotiated and entered into an agreement regarding the sale and conveyance of the Punta Property and Boca Property in violation of the Cour's Injunction Order and with the design to subvert the authority, dignity, integrity and decency of the Court's proceedings and the Nevada judicial process. @ 4. Pedro Villagean and Alvaro Villagran met with a San Francisco investor in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico, in the fall of 2009 to negotiate and sign an agreement regarding the sale and conveyance of the Punta Property and Boca Property in violation of the Cour’s Injunction Order and with the design to subvert the authority, dignity, integrity and decency of the Court's proceedings and the Nevada judicial process. G) 3. Pedro Villagran and Alvaro Villagran met with a San Francisco investor in Phoenix, Arizona, on May 28, 2010, to negotiate a sale and conveyance of the Punta Property and Boca Property in violation of the Court's Injunction Order and with the design to subvert the authority, dignity, integrity and decency of the Court's proceedings and the Nevada judicial process, (k) Alvaro Villagran prepared the principal agreement to effect a sale and conveyance of the Punta Property and Boca Property in violation of the Court's Injunction Order and with the design to subvert the authority, dignity, integrity and deceney of the Court’s proceedings and the Nevada judicial process, 44, The 06/22/10 Onder and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause Re: Villagrans In Contempt and Order to Show Cause, along with all corresponding exhibits, were properly and effectively served upon Alvaro Villagran on July 18, 2010, 45. The 09/07/10 Order, the 06/22/10 Order and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause Re: Villagrans In Contempt and Order to Show Cause, along with all correspondingaww 10 u 12 B 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 vo ee exhibits, were properly and effectively served upon J. Pedro Villagran, Alvaro Villagran and Ariel Villagran on November 6, 2010, 46. Moreover, the Villagrans have U.S. driver's licenses, maintain U.S. residences, ‘own and operate several businesses in the U.S. and maintain U.S, bank accounts. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Given the Villagrans’ purposeful injection into Nevada, the Court has personal jurisdiction over each of them, 2. Given that the Villagrans have engaged in activity outside Nevada that was designed to, and did, have purpose and effect in Nevada, the Court has personal jurisdiction over each of them. 3. The Villagrans have sufficient minimum contacts with Nevada that they could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in Nevada, 4, The Injunction Order is clear and unambiguous. 5. The Villagrans are subject to, and bound by, the Injunetion Order. 6. Itis possible for the Villagrans to comply with the Injunction Order, 7. The Villagrans have the ability to comply with the Injunction Order. 8. Plaintiffs have demonstrated by clear and convineing evidence that the Villagrans have knowingly and willfully violated and refused to comply with the Injunction Order. 9. Plaintiffs have demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the Villagrans have knowingly and willfully aided and abetted Rogers in violating and refusing to comply with the Injunction Order. 10. The Court finds that incarceration of the Villagrans is appropriate to achieve compliance with the Injunetion Order. 11. The 06/22/10 Order is clear and unambiguous.27 sores saute 12. It was possible for Alvaro Villagran to appear on August 24, 2010, and comply with the 06/22/10 Order. 13, Alvaro Villagran had the ability to appear on August 24, 2010, and comply with the 06/22/10 Order. 14. Plaintiffs have demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Alvaro Villagran knowingly and willfully violated and refused to comply with the 06/22/10 Order. 15, ‘The 09/07/10 Order is clear and unambiguous. 16. It was possible for the Villagrans to appear on December 10, 2010, and comply with the 09/07/10 Order, 17. The Villagrans had the ability to appear on December 10, 2010, and comply with the 09/07/10 Order. 18. Plaintiffs have demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the Villagrans knowingly and willfully violated and refused to comply with the 09/07/10 Order. 19, The 12/28/10 Order is clear and unambiguous. 20. It was possible for J. Pedro Villagran and Ariel Villagran to appear on February 4, 2011, and comply with the 12/28/10 Order. 21, J. Pedro Villagran and Ariel Villagran had the ability to appear on February 4, 2011, and comply with the 12/28/10 Order. 22. Plaintiffs have demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that J. Pedro Villagran and Ariel Villagran knowingly and willfully violated and refused to comply with the 12/28/10 Order, 23. The Court finds that incarceration of the Villagrans is appropriate to compel the Villagrans to comply with the Court's orders and the dignity and decorum of the judicial process. u 10