You are on page 1of 57

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 1 of 57 Page ID #:1188

JOHN M. SORICH(CA Bar No. 125223)


jsorichC2adorno.com
THEO'QREE. BACON (CA Bar NO.1 15395)

~aC~~si15f&kmyOO (CA Bar No.1 69442)

cyooC2adorno.com

4
5

ADOltOYOSS ALVARADO & SMITH


A Professional Corporation
1 MacArthur Place, Suite 200
Santa Ana, California 92707
Tel: (714) 852-6800
Fax: (714) 852-6899

7
8

Attorneys for Defendants


CHASE BANK USA, N.A. and CHASE
HOME FINANCE LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


10

OF CALIFORNIA

CENTRAL DISTRICT

11
:r

12

en

ot

13

PAUL NGUYN, an individual; and


LAUR NGUYEN, an individual,

0
'"
..'"
..
,.
..

14

'"
'"

15

v.

;,
0
z'"

16

Chase Bank USA, N.A.; Chase Home


Finance, LLC; First American Loanstar

0
0
'"

17

CASE NO.: CV09-4589 AHM (AJWx)

JUDGE: Hon. A. Howard Matz

Plaintiffs,

Trustee Services; Sydney

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AND RELIEF FROM DEFAULT
UNDER RULE 55(c);
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
UNDER

Funding and

Realty, Inc.; Sidney Tran, an Individual;

18

19

20

Nexus Escrow, Inc.; Jolm Ng~yen,an

Individual; Joseph Son Cao Tran, and


Individual; Reafty Savers Inc.; Ngyyen
Paul Tuan, an Individual; and DOES 1

RULE 60(b) of

THEREOF

through 50, inclusive,

55(c) )

(FRCP.Rules60(b) and

21

CTRM: "14"
8, 2010
TIME: 10:00 a.m.

Defendants.
22

DATE: November

23
ActionFiled: June 25, 2009

24
25

PARTIES:

TO PLAINTIFFS AND ALL INTERESTED

26

NOTICE IS GIVEN that under Rule 60(b)

27

("FRCP"), on November 8, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. or as

28

be heard in Courtroom" 1 4" of the above-entitled Court, defendants Chase Bank USA,

of

Federal Rules of

soon

thereafter

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT


1152634.2

Civil Procedure

as the matter can

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 2 of 57 Page ID #:1189

N.A. ("Chase Bank")

"Defendants") wil move this Court for Relief from the Default Judgment entered on

September 15,2010. The grounds forthe Motion are as follows:

and

. Excusable neglect of

. Attorney negligence is an

Defendants' counseL.

"extra-ordinary" circumstance justifying relief

. The Judgmentis void

entering Defendants' default, as any failure to

fraudulent conduct on the

follow the Court orders was not


part

of

Defendants and

did

not relate to the merits

of the

case. Rule 60(b)(4).

For the same reasons, under Rule 55(c) ofFRCP, Defendants wil move this

11

12

exceeded its authority in

Court

because the

10

Chase Home Finance LLC ("Chase

under Rule 60(b)(6).

:r

Home," and collectively

entry of default on August23, 2010.

Court to set aside the

en

ot

13

Defendants . met and conferred with Plaintiffs. on September 29,

Counsel for

0
'"

..'"
..
,.
..

14

2010 regarding the

'"
'"

15

requirements

z'"

16

DATED: October

~
0
;,
0
0

grounds

of

Local

Rule

for this

Motion. Therefore,Defendantshaveinet the

5,2010

7-3.

ADORNO YOSS ALVARADO & SMITH


A Professional Corporation

'"

Rule

7-3. See, Local

17

By: lsi S. Christopher Yoo


JOHN M. SORICH
S. CHRSTOPHER YOO

18

19

msIrBS\~eEes1~lJ~A. and CHASE

20

HOME FINANCE LLC

21

22
23

24
25

26

27
28
2
MOTION FORRELlEF FROM

1152634.2

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 3 of 57 Page ID #:1190

TABLE.OF CONTENTS

Page

2
3

4
5

I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT....................................................................... 1
II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS........................................................3
A. Subject Loan..........................................................................................3

B. Court Order Issuing Injunction Enjoining Foreclosure.........................

C. Defendants' Failure to File Status Report Regarding Status of

Settlement Conference ..........................................................................4


8

Plaintiffs and Defendants to ontinue Trial


Defendants to File Cross-Complaint .... ...................... 5
DEFAULT
FILE PRECONFERENCE STATEMENT WAS DUE TO "EXCUSABLE
NEGLECT"......................................................................................................6
FOR THE NEGLIGENCE
OF THEIR COUNSEL....................................................................................9
DID
FRAUDULENT OR INTENTIONAL
OF DEFAULT AND
DEFAULT JUDGMENT ................................................................................9
D. Agreement Between

Date and Allow

RELIEVED

III. DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE

10

FROM

JUDGMENT, BECAUSE DEFENDANTS' FAILUR TO


TRIAL

11
:r

12

IV. DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE

.
:

en

ot

0
'"
..'"
..

13

V. CONDUCT

14

~
'"
'"

0
0

WARRNT

ENTRY

REASONS THATTHEDEFAULT JUDGMENT

VI. FOR THE SAME

16

~?~ullfJJJL~fEs~~~d~~~~lJ~rn~~~.?~..........ll

17

VII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................12

0'"

WOULD

15

;,
z'"

LEVEL OF

CONDUCT THAT

,...

DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL

OF DEFENDANTS OR

NOT RISE TO THE

18

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26

27
28
1
NO

1152634.2

lICE OF MallON AND MallON 10 DISMISS COMPLAIN I

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 4 of 57 Page ID #:1191

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

2
3

Cases

Bateman v. United States Postal Service,


231 F.3d 1220,1223 (9th Cir. 2000)...........................................................................7

Brf4fF~3d ~~~~2~6f7th.iff~(8)...............................................................................6
7
8

Community Dental Services v. Tani,

282 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir 2002)............................................................................9

Employee Painter's Trust v. Ethan Enterprises, Inc.,


10

480 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007).............................................................................7

11

Hot!7 U.tl~O~: 413-14 (1897).....................................................................................10

12

:r

:?

en

13

ot

0
'"
..
'"
..
,...

~
'"
'"

;,
0
z'"

"'

..

14

"'
f-

Mendoza v. Wight Vineyard Management,


(9t1 Cir. 1986) .................................................................. 7, 11
783 F.2d 94r, 945-946

Marine, S.A. v. Us. Phosmarine, Inc.,


682 F .2d 802, 805-06 (9th Cir. 1982)...... .................... ........................................ 10, 11

Phoceene So

us

15

16

Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates LTD Partnership,


507 US 390, 394 (1993) .............................................................................................. 7

17

R04t7f!S~1;~s16T(i98r~~~~....................................................................................10

0
'"

18

Securities and Exchange Comrnissionv. Seaboard Corp.,


19

666 F .2d 414, 416- 17 (9th Cir.1982) .......... ..... .......... ............ ............................. 10, 11

20

TCi4~11d i~ ,I696r~the;~2QB~~~~~~~~............................................................... 1 1

21

Televideo Systems, Inc. v. H~identhal,


22

826 F.2d 915,916-917 (9t1 Cir. 1987) ........................................................................9

23

ya~9m~od Vi ~qtt9tl~i;: !'ff).....................................................................................8

24
25

Statutes
15 USC l635(b)...........................................................................................................9

26
Rule 55(c) of

the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure .....................................................11

27
28

Rules
FRCP Rule 60(b ).........................................::............................................................6, 11
11

NO I ICE OF MO I ION AND MO I ION I a DISMISS COMPLAIN I


1152634.2

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 5 of 57 Page ID #:1192

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

FRCP Rule 5 5( c). ............. ....................... .... ............. ........................ .........................1, 11

FRCP Rule 60(b)............................................................................................................. 1

FRCP Rule 60(b )(1) ... ..... ....... ..... ....... ........ .................. ............ ..... ................ ................1 i

FRCP Rule 60(b )(3) ........................................................................................................ 9

FRCP Rule 60(b)(4)........................................................................................................9

FRCP Rule 60(b)( 6) ........................................................................................................ 9

10
11
:r

12

.
:

en

ot

13

0'"
..
'"
..
,.
..

14

'"
'"

15

z'"

16

0
;,
0
0
'"

17
18

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27
28
iii
NOIICE OF MallON AND MalIaN 10 DISMISS COMPLAIN I
1152634.2

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 6 of 57 Page ID #:1193

MEMORANDUM.OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A. ("Chase Bank") and Chase Home Finance

2
3

LLC ("Chase Home," and collectively "Defendants'l) hereby submit the following

memorandum of points and authorities in support of their Motion for Relief from

Default Judgment entered on September 15,2010 under Rule 60(b) of

of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") and their Motion to Set Aside Default under Rule 55( c)

ofFRCP.

Federal Rules

ARGUMENT

I. SUMMARY OF

On August 23, 2010, the Court entered default against Defendants because of

10

their counsel's failure to file required pre-trial documents and because of a perceived

11

lack of compliance with certain prior orders (See, Pacer Docket NO.1 15).

12

Specifically, the Court cited the following:

E
:?

en

13

ot

0
'"
..
'"

..
,.
..

"z

'"
'"

~
0

;,
0
z'"

cancel

. On November 17,2010, the Court ordered Defendants to

14

foreclosure of

15

separate occasions.

Defendants continued with foreclosure on two

the subject property, but

;:

16

. Defendants' failure to

this matter

file a status report regarding referral of

'"

17

Magistrate JudgeWistrich

for a settlement conference before

18

. Defendants' failure to file apretrial conference statement.

19

As a result of the

the Court entered

default

Defendants on

judgment on September 15,2010. However, for

20

August 23, 20l0, and

21

the reasons set forth below, Defendants respectfully request that they

22

the Default Judgment, because

23

"excusable neglect" of

24

reasons.

issued a default

be relieved from

any failure to comply with the court orders were due to


Defendants .and/orDefendants' counsel for the following

First, with respect perceived failure to comply with the order to cancel

25

26

foreclosure, the Court acknowledged in its January 26, 2010 order that the foreclosure

27

trustee, Loanstar, when forward with the foreclosure despite having been advised by

28

Defendants' counsel that it was enjoined from doing so. With respect to the second
1

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT


1152634.2

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 7 of 57 Page ID #:1194

was issued inadvertently

1
I occasion on or about June 28, 2010, the foreclosure notice

2
"

oJ

and thereafter retracted immediately after Plaintiffs brought it to the attention of


Defendants' counseL.

Second, with respect to the failure of the parties to complete a settlement

4
5

.
:
en

the Spring of 20 1 0, including written discovery, and it was not until the depositions of
Plaintiffs in late May

201 0 that it became apparentthatthere were other parties who

were dismissed by Plaintiffs who may bear responsibility for the acts giving rise to

Plaintiffs' lawsuit. Defendants' counsel did initially contact the clerk for Judge

10

:r

May 31, 2010, the case was in active discovery during

conference by the deadline of

light of

Wistrich and provided dates to Plaintiffs in November 2009. However, in

11

factual disputes with the Plaintiffs, it was necessary to undertake discovery. This

12

information is offered as an explanation, not an excuse. Responsibility for the failure

13

0
Q
..
'"
..
,.
..

to complete the settlement conference lies with Defendants' counsel, not the

14

Defendants.

'"
'"

15

ot

;,
0z
'"
0'"
~

Third, the failure to file a pretrial conference statement is the result of the
Defendants' counseL. As noted in documents

16

inadvertence and excusable neglect of

17

previously filed with the Court,

18

agreement to seek the continuance of trial in order to bring into the case

19

parties who bear some responsibility for the

20

The mistake by Defendants' counsel was the failure to file the motion to continue trial

21

at an earlier time iii the action. Theparties were in agreement that these other

22

who Plaintiffs had previously dismissed, were necessary

23

Defendants' counsel and

Plaintiff

had reached an
certain other

events giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims.

parties,

to achieve full and complete

resolution of this matter. It should be noted that Defendants were not the only party

24

who initially failed to file a pretrial

25

one either, yet only the Defendants were

26

conference statement, the Plaintiffs did not file


punished

by the Court.

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants respectfully request the Court to set

27

aside the default judgment, and allow the parties to litigate this matter on the merits.

28

11/

2
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT
1152634.2

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 8 of 57 Page ID #:1195

FACTS

II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT

A. Subject Loan

Plaintiffs obtained a loan in the amount of $250,000.00 ("Loan") in connection

4
5

6
7
8

10

with the property located at 16141 Quartz Street, Westminster, California 92683
trust encumbering the

("Subject Property"). The Loan was secured by a deed of

Subject Property that was recorded with the Orange County Official Records on

number 2007000731120 ("DOT"). The DOT

December 12,2007 as instrument

identifies Chase Bank as the lender and Plaintiffs as the borrowers. See, Request for
Motion to Dismiss the First Amended

Judicial Notice ("RJ"), 1, attached to the

Default and Election to Sell Under

Complaint. Pacer Docket No. 35. A Notice of

11

Deed of Trust ("NOD") was recorded pursuant to the DOT on March 19, 2009 with

12

the Orange County Official Records as instrument number 2009000131 148 due to

13

Plaintiffs' failure to make monthly mortgage

14

March 18,2009, the amount arrears under

'"
'"

15

Exhibit 2. A Substitution of

;,
0
z'"

16

:r

en

ot

payments. The NOD states that as of

0
'"

..'"
..
,.
..

~
0
0

the Loan was $14,372.75. See RJ,


Trustee

to the DOT was recorded on April 22,

pursuant

2009 with the Orange County OfficialRecordsas instrument number 2009000197524.

'"

17

First American Loanstar Trustee

18

RJN, Exhibit 3, Pacer Docket No. 35. An Assignment of

the

Services was namedthe new trustee of

Deed of

30, 2009, with

DOT. See

Trust was recorded

19

on

20

2009000215727. All beneficial interest under the DOT was assigned to IPMorgan

Recorder as instrument number

21

Chase Bank, N.A. ("JPMorgan"). See RJN, Exhibit4, Pacer

22

of Trustee's Sale was recorded pursuant to the DOT on

23

County Official Records as instrument

24

Pacer Docket No. 35.

25

Docket No. 35. A Notice

June 24, 2009 with the Orange

number 200900033 1959. SeeRJ, Exhibit 5,

Foreclosure

B. Court Order Issuing Injunction Enjoining

26

On August 3, 2010, the Court issued apreliminary injunction enjoining

27

foreclosure sale of

28

2010, the Court further ordered Defendants to actually cancel foreclosure of

the SubjectProperty. Pacer Docket No. 45. On November 17,

the
3

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT


1152634.2

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 9 of 57 Page ID #:1196

Subject Property. Pacer Docket No. 94. On January 4,2010, Plaintiff

for contempt against Defendants and Loanstar for the re-initiation of

Pacer Docket 99. However, in its Order of January 26, 2010, the Court recognized

submitted to the Court evidence that they took measures to comply with its order to

cancel the foreclosure sale and any related

10

12
13

Specifically, on November

proceedings.

16,2009, their counsel sent an email to Loanstar's counsel, notifying Loanstar that the
foreclosure proceedings and instructing them to

Court had ordered cancellation of all

cancel the sale." Pacer Docket No. 105.

The second foreclosure was initiated on June 28, 2010 but rescinded on July 8,

11

ot

Defendants. The Court stated

that the foreclosure was re-initiated without any fault of

in its Order, "Defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance LLC have

.
:
en

the foreclosure.

:r

filed a motion

2010 - two days after Paul Nguyen contacted Defendants' counseL. This inadvertence
by Defendants was remedied within six

days of

being

contacted by Plaintiffs. See

0
Cl
..
'"
..
,...

14

Declaration of S. Christopher Yoo ("Yoo Declaration"),if 4, Exhibit "A." In fact, this

'"
'"

15

issue was resolved without the necessity of any Court intervention.

0
0

;,
-;
'"

16

C. Defendants'Failure to

File Status

Status of

ReportRegarding

'"

Settlement Conference

17
18

19

did contact Judge Wistrich's clerk, and provided

Counsel for Defendants

available dates toMr. Nguyen November 16,2009. Yoo Declaration,if 5, Exhibit

20

"B." From then on, due to the inadvertence of

21

settlement conference was not scheduled. This failure

22

counseL. However, this issue was addressed with Mr.

23

May 27, 2010, and Defendants' counsel

24

the

Defendants' counsel,

is the

fault of

actual

Defendants'

Nguyen at his deposition on


attempted to

schedule

a date for a settlement

conference up to the time of the Scheduling Conference on August 23, 2010.

25

However, judge Wistrich did not want to schedule a

26

deadline to complete the settlement conference had passed as of

27

was the fault of Defendants' counsel by not filing a status report regarding the

28

a settlement conference. However, this was an oversight, and not done intentionally

settlement conference once the

May 31,2010. d. It

4
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT
1152634.2

status of

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 10 of 57 Page ID


#:1197

or maliciously to either offend the Court or to take improper advantage in litigation.

The case was in active discovery during the Spring of 20 1 0, including written

discovery, and it was not until the depositions of Plairitiffs in late May 2010 that it

became apparent that there were other parties who were dismissed by Plaintiffs who

may bear responsibility for the

D. Agreement Between

Date

:r

Plaintiffs' lawsuit. d.

acts giving rise to

Defendants to Continue Trial

Plaintiffs and

Defendants toFileCross-Contplaint

and Allow

on May 28,2010,

On May 27, 2010, Paul Nguyen's deposition was taken, and

the deposition of

Laura Nguyen was taken per

10

Nguyen was not

11

After the depositions, it becameapparentthatthe other parties

12

may be responsible for the alleged forgery of Laura

13

documents. Based on

because Mrs.

the parties' agreement

available for deposition on

May 21, 201 0,

as originally noticed.

Defendants

besides

Nguyen's signature on certain loan

C
:?
en

ot

testimonies, itbecame apparent that

Plaintiffs' deposition

0'"
..
'"
..
,...

~
'"
'"

0
0

Joseph Cao Son Tran, Angel Tran,SydneyFunding,and Nexus Escrow, Inc. may be

14

"'
f3.
'"

15

responsible for possibly forging Ms.

16

Defendants immediately made a title

17

Company ("Fidelity") to

18

Exhibit "C." Defendants werehopefulthatFidelity would

19

either resolve. the inatter promPtly

20

Defendants' counsel and relieve Defendants of

21

attorneys' fees and

..

on

Nguyen's signature. Thus,

May 27, 2010,

;,
:z
'"

claim to Fidelity

National Title Insurance

'"

22

24

Funding, and Nexus Escrow, Inc. This agreement by

27

the title claim, and

or assumethedefenseof this actiol1iiiPlac~of


the unnecessary burden ofincurring

In this regard, Plaintiffs agreed to stipulate to continue

Defendants to file

26

accept

costs in this action.

23

25

forgery. Yoo Declaration, ir 6,

seek indemnification for

the trial date

to allow

Joseph Cao SOn Tran, Angel Tran, Sydney

a cross-claim against

Plaintiffs is

expressly

acknowledged in Plaintiffs' Response to Order to Show Cause ("0SC") Re: Failure to


Prosecute, and Plaintiffs' Unilateral

Conference Statement,irir 10- 18. Pacer

Pretrial

Docket NO.1 08.

In fact, on August 17,2010, Paul Nguyen sent an email to Defendants' counsel

28

5
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

1152634.2

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 11 of 57 Page ID


#:1198

1
again reiterating his intention to agree to a stipulation to

leave for Defendants to file a cross-complaint. Yoo Declaration, ii 8, Exhibit "D." In

response, on August 19, 2010, Defendants' counsel forwarded to Plaintiffs the

proposed cross-complaint and the proposed stipulation to continue the trial date.

Because Plaintiffs had objections to the proposed cross-complaint, on August 20,

2010, Defendants' counsel forwarded the revised cross-complaint. Y 00 Declaration,

:r

continue the trial date and

ii 8. Up to the

date

of

on August

Conference

the Pretrial

23, 2010, Defendants'

postponed to allow Defendants to file a

counsel believed that the trial date would be

cross-complaint against certain third parties so that the

entire matter could be resolved

10

in one lawsuit. Y 00 Declaration, ii 9. The failure to file the pretrial conference

11

statement was due to Defendants' mistaken understanding that the parties would

12

continue the trial date and allow Defendants to prosecute the cross-claims.

C
:?

en

ot

The Default Judgment was entered against Defendants on September 15, 2010.

13

0
Q

."
'"

14

See, Pacer Docket Number 127.

~
'"
'"
0

15

III. DEFENDANTS. SHOULD..BE.RELIEVEDFROMDEFAULT

..
,.
..

;,
z'"0

16

JUDGMENT, BECAUSEDEFENDANTS'FAILURE TO.

17

TRIAL CONFERENCESTATEMENT WAS

FILE

PRE-

'"

DUETO "EXCUSABLE

NEGLECT"

18
19

judgment. If

FRCP Rule 60(b) governs amotion to seek relieffrom a default

20

the moving party can show "mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect," the

21

court may set aside a judgment. FRCP 60(b). A Rule60(b) motion must be brought

judgment. FRCP 60(c)(I); Brandon v. Chicago Board

22

within 1 year from the entry of

23

of Ed., 143 F.3d 293, 296 (7th Cir. 1998). Thus, this

24

The factors for "excusable

Motion is timely.
neglect" are:

25

CD prejudice to other side

26

CD length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings

27

CD the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the

28

reasonable control of the movant, and


6
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT
1152634.2

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 12 of 57 Page ID


#:1199

. whether the movant acted in good faith.

2
3

Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates LTD Partnership, 507 US


390, 394 (1993).

The Supreme Court stated that all relevant circumstances must be taken into

4
5

account in determining whether the neglect was excusable. Pioneer Investment

Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates LTD Partnership, 507 US at 395.

As to default judgments, the following factors are considered:

7
8

. whether default resulted from defendant's culpable conduct

(devious, deliberate, wilful or bad faith failure to respond)

10

.. whether defendant has meritorious defense; and

11

. whether reopening the default judgment would prejudice plaintiff.

:r

12

Employee Painter's Trust v. Ethan Enterprises, Inc. 480F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir.

ot

13

2007).

.
:
en

0
'"
..'"
..

14

covers negligence onthe part of counseL.

Moreover, excusable neglect

,...

~
'"

;,
0
z'"

15

(9th Cir. 2000).

Bateman v. United States Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223

16

Additionally, the

Ninth Circuit

has expressed

judicial

a . strong

preference for

'"

17

adjudication on the merits. See Mendoza v. Wight Vineyard

18

941, 945-946 (9th Cir. 1986). "These

19

Management, 783 F.2d

Rule 60(b) grounds are liberally interpreted

when used on a motion for

20

" Id.

As stated above, Defendants' counsel did 110t file a pretrial conference

allow

21

statement, because the parties

22

Defendants an opportunity to file a cross-complaint. See, Yoo Declaration, irir 7-9,

23

Exhibit "D." In fact,

24

trial date and leave for

25

Yoo Declaration, irir 7-9, Exhibit "D." Even

agreed to stipulate to continue the trial date to

Plaintiffs cannot dispute that they agreed to continuance of

the

Defendants to .file a cross-coinplaint other third parties. See,


as of

August i 7,2010, Paul Nguyen sent

26

an email confirming his agreement to continue the trial and leave for Defendants to

27

file a cross-complaint. See, YooDeclaration, ir 8, Exhibit "D."

If the default judgment is to be set aside, there is no prejudice to Plaintiffs,

28

7
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT
1152634.2

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 13 of 57 Page ID


#:1200

1
1.

because Plaintiffs have not made any payment under the subject loan since December

2008. In fact, there is no pending foreclosure. See, Y 00 Declaration, iT 10, Exhibit

'1

.)

"E." Thus, a short delay in resolution of

4
5

Once the default judgment is set aside, Defendants wil be ready for trial within
a week of

Alter or Amend the Default Judgment, there is a meritorious defense to Plaintiffs'


contention that Defendants

concurrently filed Motion to Alter or Amend

Circuit law, Plaintiffs are not

11

12

based on the concurrently filed Motion to

the Court's notice. Additionally,

10

not prejudice Plaintiffs.

this matter wil

have forfeited

entitlement to the loan proceeds. See

their

Default Judgment. Based on the 9th


entitled to forfeiture of the subject loan, because until

there is an acknowledgement of rescission

decision maker's

by the lender or the

adjudication of rescission, a plaintiffwouldsimply be advancing a claim for


New York, 329 F.3d 1167, i 172 (9th Cir. 2003).

rescission. Yamamoto v. Bank of

E
:?
en

ot

13

~j
".

14

was contributorily negligent for entering

15

knowledge or consent. In this

16

consent or knowledge. In

17

proposed judgment, she

18

"receive any proceed from" the

19

Thus, Defendants have

20

negligence, and other defenses againstPaulNguyen. Inshort, Paul

21

to obtain a residential loan without

Moreover, testimony at trial

minimum,

wil demonstrate that at

o.
'" .

.... z~

into aJoantransaction without his wife's

,., .:
..)- ~

.c w
z iz

vi":
~
vi? f.

of:
0
z'"
0

Paul Nguyen

loan without his wife's

matter, Mr. Nguyen obtained a

;,.:

fact,

in

Laura

Nguyen's reply

to the objection to the

'"

22

stated "she

was a

stranger to

the transaction," and did not

Pacer DocketNo. 122, page 3.

loan transaction. See,

affirmative defenses of estoppel, unclean hands, contributory


Nguyen's

of

knowledge and COnsent

decision

his wife led to his wife's

signature purportedly being forged by others.

23

Thus, the failure to file the

24

mistaken understanding of

25

continue the trial date and allow Defendants

pretrial

Defendants' couiisel that

conference

statement was

because the

due to the

parties would

to file a cross-claim against certain third

26

parties, Defendants would not have to file a pretrial conference statement.

27

Defendants' failure was not the result ofany malice, devious intent, or bad faith failure

28

to comply with any court order. Thus, Defendants' failure to file a pretrial conference
8
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT
1152634.2

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 14 of 57 Page ID


#:1201

statement was a result of "excusable" neglect on the part of

as a result the default judgment should be set aside.

OF THEIR COUNSEL

default can be set aside for "all other reasons that justifies relief." Some courts treat

extreme or "gross" attorney negligence as an "extra-ordinary" circumstances justifying

relief under Rule 60(b)( 6). An unknowing client should not be held liable on the basis

of a default judgment resulting from an attorney's grossly negligent conduct."


(9th Cir 2002).

Community Dental Services v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164,1 169

11

of

Here, the mistake was. the belief

Defendants' counsel that the trial date would

12

be postponed, and therefore, Defendants' counsel believed that a pretrial conference

13

statement would not be necessary. Defendants should not suffer the Draconian result

14

of a default judgment wherein the Loan proceeds in the sum of $250,000 are forfeited,

15

and also be required to pay in excess of$58,000to Plaintiffs under 15 USC 1635(b)

.
:

ot

Rule 60(b)(6) that a

In addition to Rule 60(b)(3), there is a catch all provision of

10

en

SHOULD NOTBE LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE

iv. DEFENDANTS

:r

Defendants' counsel, and

0
'"

..
'"
..
,.
..

v,

;,
0

z'"

statement. Here, the totality

16

due to their counsel's failure to

17

of circumstances warrants setting aside

18

Defendants under Rule 60(b)(6).

19

v. CONDUCT OFDEFENDANTSORDEFENDANTS'COUNSELDID

file a

pretrial conference

'"

the

default judgment entered against

FRAUDULENT OR INTENTIONAL

20

NOT

21

CONDUCT THAT

22

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

23

Rule 60(b)( 4) states that the Court can provide arelief from a judgment if the

24

RISE

TO

THELEVELOF

WOULD.

ENTRY .OF.DEFAULT AND

WARRNT

judgment is void.

25

cases or enter defaults. However,

The court has the inherent power to dismiss

26

there are limits to the court's inherent power. In this regard, the court in Televideo

27

Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826F.2d 915,916-917 (9th Cir. 1987) states that the court

28

has inherent powers to dismiss cases or enter default judgments for failure to
9
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT
1152634.2

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 15 of 57 Page ID


#:1202

1
.I

prosecute, contempt of the court, or abusive litigation practices. Roadway Express,

Inc. v. Piper 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980). However, there are limits to the court's

,.

;)

inherent power to do so. The need for the orderly administration of justice does not

permit violations of due process. See Phoceene Sous Marine, s.A. v. Us. Phosmarine,

Inc., 682 F.2d 802,805-06 (9th Cir.1982) (recognizing that wilful deceit and conduct

utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice would merit the

imposition of severe sanctions, but

stating that he was too il to attend trial-was unrelated to the merits of

10

finding

the controversy

the sanction was inconsistent with due process. The decision was based principally on
the notion that a party should not be deprived of his opportunity to defend based on

11

factors unrelated to the merits of

:r

12

Seaboard Corp., 666 F.2d 414,416-17 (9th Cir.1982) (finding that a default

ot

13

against the defendant for failure to pay

14

an order to give a deposition was punitive and

'"
'"

15

could not presume that the case lacked

;,
0
z'"

16

.
:
en

0
'"
..
'"
..
,.
..

~
0
0

because defendant's deceit-falsely

that

Exchange Commission v.

his case.); Securities and

udgment

defendant had complied with

a fine when the

a violation of

due process as the court

merit); Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409,413-14

(1897) (finding that courts may not strike an answer and enter a default merely to

'"

17

punish a contempt of court unrelated

18

Couii's inherent power to enter default should

19

conduct of a party that impedes one's fight to conduct

20

merits of

21

be based on some type of "fraudulent"


discovery and

the case. See, Securities and

Exchange Commission v. Seaboard

which

lead to the

Corp., 666

F.2d at 416-17.

22

Here, the Court entered default against Defendants based on the Court's

23

conclusion that Defendants violated

24

conference statement. Pacer

25

merits of case). These cases state thatthe

to

certain

court orders and failed to file a pretrial

Docket No. 115. However, for the reasons

set forth

above, Defendants' failure to comply with the Courtorder was not intentional and was

26

merle the result of inadvertence of their counseL. Especially

27

pretrial conference statement, such a failure was a result of the mistaken belief that the

28

trial date would be postponed to allow Defendants to file a cross-complaint. In light


10
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT
1152634.2

as to the failure to file a

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 16 of 57 Page ID


#:1203

their due

of

process right to defend against the claims asserted by Plaintiffs based on the factors

unrelated to the merits of the case. The cases identified above hold that even a

conduct that may be in contempt of the court would not warrant a default being

the totality of

the circumstances, Defendants should not be deprived of

entered against that party if

the case. Phoceene Sous Marine,

unrelated to the merit of

s.A. v. Us. Phosmarine, Inc., 682 F.2d at 805-06; Securities and Exchange

Commission v. Seaboard Corp., 666F.2d at 416- 1 7. The conduct

"fraudulent" and utterly inconsistent with the

has to be
orderly administration of justice.

Defendants respectfully state that their inadvertence in this case does not rise to

10

the level of intentional conduct that relates to the merit of the case that would warrant

11

would be violated if the default

entry of default. Thus, Defendants' du.eprocess rights

:r

12

and default judgment are not set aside.

ot

13

VI. FOR THESAMEREASONSTHATTHEDEFAULT JUDGMENT

.
:
en

0'"
..
'"
..
..,.

14

SHOULD

'"
'"

15

DEFAULT. SHOULD

;,
0
z'"

16

On

~
0

0'"
~

17

August

BE SET. ASIDE

THE ENTRY OF

UNDER RULE 60(b),

RULE .55(c)

BESET ASIDE UNDER

entered

23, 2010, the Court

default

to Defendants. The court can

as

standard for

set aside the entry of default for "good cause.." Inthe9thCircuit, the

18

"good cause" to set aside the default is the same standard as the "excusable"

19

negligel1ce .stanciarciiincierRule6Q(i:)(l) t()setasicietheJiicigl1el1t. TQl Group Life

20

Insurance Plan v. Knoebber,244 F.3d 691, 696

21

(9thCir. 2001).

In this regard, the 9th

Circuit has

expressed

a strong judicial preference for

22

adjudication on the merits.SeeMendozav. Wight Vineyard Management, 783F .2d

23

941, 945-946 (9th Cir. 1986). Rule 5S(c), provides in

24

shown the court

25

been entered, may likewise set it aside in

may set aside an entry

full

of

default

accordance

and,

if

that: "For

a judgment

good cause
by

default

has

with Rule 60(b) ."

26

Because the standard is the same under RuleS 5( c) as Rule 60(b)( 1), for the

27

reasons state above, Defendants respectfully request that the default entered on August

28

23, 2010 be set aside.


11

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT


1152634.2

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 17 of 57 Page ID


#:1204

i
1

VII. CONCLUSION
For on the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court

2
3

grant their Motion, and set aside the default that was entered on August 23, 2010 and

the default judgment that was entered on September 15, 2010.

DATED: October 5,2010

ADORNO YOSS ALVARADO & SMITH


A Professional Corporation

By: lsi S. Christopher Yoo


JOHNM. SORICH

S.CHRISTOPHER YOO

ms1!BS\~e6es1~lJ~A. and CHASE

10

HOME FINANCE LLC

11
:r

12

ot

13

.
:
en

0
'"
..
'"
..
,.
..

14

'"
'"

15

;,
0
z'"

16

~
0
0'"

17
18

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27
28
12
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT
i i 52634.2

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 18 of 57 Page ID


#:1205

OF S.CHRISTOPHERYOO

DECLARATION

I, S. Christopher Yoo, declare as follows:

1. I am a member with the law firm of Adorno, Yoss, Alvarado & Smith, a

Professional Corporation, attorneys of record

Finance LLC ("Chase

and Chase Bank USA, N.A. ("Chase Bank" and

Home")

collectively "Defendants") in the above-captioned action ("Action"). I have been duly


admittedto practice law in

herein for defendants Chase Home

the

State of

and

California

this District.

before

2. I am submitting this Declaration in support of the Motion to be Relieved

as a witness in this matter, I am

from Default and Default Judgment. If called

10

competent to testify of my own personal

11

to the matters set forth in this

the best of my recollection, as

knowledge, to

Declaration.

:r

12

ot

13

foreclosure sale of

14

2010, the Court further ordered

15

Subject Property. Pacer DocketNo.94. OnJanuary 4,2010, Plaintiff

16

for contempt against

17

Pacer Docket 99. However, in its OrderofJanuary26,2010, the Court recognized

18

that the foreclosure wasre-initiatedwithoutanyfaultofDefendants. The Court stated

.
:
en

issued a preliminary injunction enjoining

3. On August 3, 2010, the Court

the SubjectProperty.PacerDocketNo. 45. On November 17,

0
'"

..

'"

..
,.
..

:i
."
;:

'"
'"

~
0

;,
0z
'"
0

Defendants to actually

Defendants

and

cancel foreclosure

of the

filed a motion

Loanstarfor there-initiation of the foreclosure.

'"

Chase Bank USA,N.A.andChaseHomeFinanceLLC have

19

in its Order, "Defendants

20

submitted to the Court evidence that

21

cancel the foreclosure sale and

22

16, 2009, their counsel sent an email. to

23

Court had ordered cancellation of all foreclosure. proceedings

24

cancel the sale." Pacer Docket

25

26

they

order to

took measures to comply with its

proceedings. Specifically, on November

any related

notifying Loanstar that the

Loanstar' s counsel,

and instructing them to

No. 105.

4. The second foreclosure was initiated

on June 28, 2010

but rescinded on

July 8, 2010 - TWO days after Paul Nguyen contacted Defendants' counseL. This

27

inadvertence by Defendants was remedied

28

Plaintiffs. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" isa true and correct copy of

within six

days of

the Notice of
1

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT


1152634.2

being contacted by

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 19 of 57 Page ID


#:1206

Rescission ofNotIce of uefault executed on July 8, 2010 by NTIex West LLC and

County Recorder's Office. In tct, this issue was resolved without the necessity of

any Court intervention.

5. My office did contact Judge Wistrich's clerk, and provided available

:r

number 2010000328766 with the Orange

recorded on July 12,2010 as instrument

dates to Mr. Nguyen November 16,2009. Attached hereto

dated November 16, 2009 to

as Exhibit "B" is an email


From

Mr. Nguyen.

then on,

due to

inadvertence,

my

the actual settlement conference was not scheduled prior to May 31, 2010. This

failure was my fault. However, this issue was addressed with Mr. Nguyen at his

to schedule a date for a

10

deposition on May 27, 2010, and my office attempted

11

settlement conference up to the time of the Scheduling Conference on

12

August 23,

2010. However, judge Wistrich did not want to schedule a settlement conference once

:?

en

13

the deadline to complete the settlement conference

14

was my inadvertence by not filing a status report regarding

'"

15

conference. However, this was an oversight, and

;,
0
z'"

16

to either offend the Court or to take improper advantage in

17

of a settlement conference

18

November 2009 to August 2010. In fact, both

ot

had

passed

as of

May 31, 2010. It

'"

..
'"

..
,.
..

~
'"

the status of a settlement


not

or maliciously

done intentionally

litigation. In fact, the issue

'"

Mr. Nguyen. on. an. ongoing basis from

was discussed with

Mr. Nguyen and I concurred that it

19

would make sense to engage in a settlement conference once a cross-claim/counter-

20

claim was filed and the third parties were brought into the lawsuit. The case was in

21

active discovery during the. Spring of 201 0, including

22

until the depositions of Plaintiffs in late May 2010 that it became apparent that there

23

were other parties who were dismissed by

24

the acts giving rise to Plaintiffs'lawsuit. This information is offered

25

explanation, not an excuse.

26

Plaintiffs who

may bear responsibilty for


as

an

the failure to complete the settlement

Responsibility for

conference lies with our office, not the Defendants.

27
28

written discovery, and it was not

6. On May 27, 2010, PaulNguyen's deposition wastaken, and on May 28,


2010, the deposition of

Laura Nguyen was taken per the parties' agreement because


2
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1152634.2

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 20 of 57 Page ID


#:1207

Mrs. Nguyen was not available for deposition on May 21, 2010, as originally noticed.

After the depositions, it became apparent that the other parties besides Defendants

may be responsible for the alleged forgery of

documents. Based on Plaintiffs' deposition testimonies, it became apparent that

Joseph Cao Son Tran, Angel Tran, Sydney Funding, and Nexus Escrow, Inc. may be

responsible for possibly forging Ms. Nguyen's signature. Thus, on May 27, 2010, my

7
8

9
10

the title

("Fidelity") to seek indemnification for forgery. A true and correct copy of

claim letter is attached hereto as

has not

Exhibit "C." Unfortunately, to date, Fidelity

yet accepted the title claim. I was.hopeful that Fidelity would accept the title claim,
and

:r

12

Defendants of

ot

13

to Fidelity National Title Insurance Company

office immediately made. a title claim

11

.
:
en

Laura Nguyen's signature on certain loan

assume the defense of

Defendants'

this actionin place of

the unnecessary burden of incurring

and relieve

counsel

costs in this

attorneys' fees and

action.

'"

..
'"
..
,.
..

..

'"

~
0

;,
0
z'"

14

May 28, 2010, Plaintiffs repeatedly agreed to stipulate to continue

7. Since

15

the trial date to allow Defendants

16

Angel Tran, Sydney Funding,

17

expressly acknowledged

18

Failure to Prosecute, andPlaintiffs'UnilateralPretrialConference Statement, iiii 10-

19

18. Pacer Docket No. 108.

to

and

file

across-claim against JosephCao Son Tran,

Nexus

Escrow, Inc. This

agreement by

Plaintiffs is

'"

20

in Plaintiffs'Responseto Order

8 In fact,

on August 17, 2010,

to Show

Paul

Cause

("OSC") Re:

Nguyen sentan email to my attention

his intention to agree to a stipulation to continue the trial date and

21

again reiterating

22

leave for Defendants to

23

Nguyen's email of August 17,2010 is attached hereto as

24

August 19, 2010, I forwarded

file a cross-complaint. A true and correct copy of Mr.


Exhibit "D." In response, on
to Plaintiffs the

proposed cross-complaint

and the

25

proposed stipulation to continue the trial.date. Because Plaintiffs had objections to the

26

proposed cross-complaint, on August 20, 2010, I forwarded the revised cross-

27

complaint.

28

9. Up to the date of

the Pretrial Conference on August 23,2010, I believed


3
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1152634.2

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 21 of 57 Page ID


#:1208

that the trial date would be postponed to allow Defendants to file a cross-complaint

against certain third parties so that the entire matter could be resolved in one lawsuit.

The failure to file the pretrial conference statement was due to my mistaken

understanding that the parties would continue the trial date and allow Defendants to

prosecute the cross-claims. Our office's failure to file a pretrial conference was not

the result of any malice, devious intent, or bad faith failure to comply with any court

order.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit "E" is a true and correct copy of an email

9
10
11

dated August 31, 2010 from Paul Nguyen setting forth all loan payments made by him

under the subj ect loan. As indicated in the August 31, 2010 email, the last payment

12

:r
C
:?
en

ot

December 17,2008.

made by Plaintiffs under the subject loan was on

of the State of California and

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws

13

the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

14

Executed on October 5, 2010at Santa Ana, California.

0
'"

..

'"

..
,.
..

"z

f-

'"
'"

;,
0
z'"

15

16

0
'"

17
18

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27
28
4
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT
1152634.2

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 22 of 57 Page ID


#:1209

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 23 of 57 Page ID


Comment:
Station Id :YUUP
#:1210

Branch :FOl,User :A052

Recorded InOfficial Records Ora.nge County


Tom Daly, Clerk-Recorder

9.00

2010000328766 11 :28am 07/12/10

Recording requested by:


LSI Tille Company

217405 N38 1

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

When Recorded Mail To:


NDEx West. L.L.C.
15000 Surveyor Boulevard, Suite 500
Addison, Texas 75001.9013

APN #: 107-903-44
Property A.ddress:

16141 QUARTZ ST
WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 92683
111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111~I11111111111111111111111111

RND20100187502242

Sp.1ci: 3bvl th~ line ror Rccorderls; usc only

Title Order No.: 100378592

Trustee Sale No.: 20100187502242

NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF NOTICE OF DEFAULT


NOTICE IS HEHEY GIVEN THAT: NDEX WEST, LLC us agent for the beneficiary under a Deed of
Trust dated l20712007, executed by PAUl. NGUYEN AND LAUnA NGUYEN,
obligations in favor of CHASE RANK USA, N.A., as Beiiel1cilry Hceorncdon

12112/2007 as Instrument No.

2007000731120 of offcial records in the Offce of the Recorder of ORANGE

County, California describing

as Tiustor, to . secure certain

land therein as more fully described on the above referenced deed of trusC

Whereas, the present beneficiary under that certain Deed of Trust herein above described, recorded a Notice of
Default and Election to Sell. Said Notice was R~corded on 06/2R/2010 as Instrument No, 2010000303698 in

the offce of the Recorder of ORANGE County. California, of omcial records.

NOW; THEREFORE, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: the present Beneficiary andlor the Trustee,
and/or the agent of the Trustee, does hereby rescind, cancel and withdniw siid Notice of Brcach and Notice of

Default and Election to Sell; it being understood, however, thar this rescission shall nol in any manner be
coiistn.ied as waiving or alTecting any breach or defaultnisti present or tunire under said Deed of Trust, or as
impairing any right or remedy thereunder, but is, and shall be deemed to be, only

an election, without prejudice,

not t(1 cause a sale to be made pursuant to said Notice, and shall no iviy jcopardize or impair any right, remedy or
privilege secured .to the Beneficiary

and/or the Trustee, under said Deed of Trust, nor modifY nor

alter in any

respect any of the terms, covenants, conditions or obligations thereof, and said Deed of Trust and all obligations
secured thereby are hereby reinstaied and sh,,1I he and rei",iin in fmce and effcct the same as if said Notice of

Breacli and Notice of Default and Election to Sell had not been made and given,

DATED: 07/08/20iO

By: Randy MidC:leton

Page lof1

FCUS_NOR_NOD.rpt- (05112110) I Ver-12

ORANGE,CA
Document: RE 2010.328766

Page 1 of 1

Printed on 8/11/2010 12:56:22 PM

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 24 of 57 Page ID


Station Id :YUUP
Comment:
#:1211

Branch :F01,User :A052

Recorded In Official Records, Orange County


Tom DalYJ Clerk-Recorder

9.00

2010000329423 03:34pm 07/12/10

Recording requested by:

LSI Title Company

217405 N38 1

When Recorded Mail To:

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

NOEx West, LL.C.


15000 Surveyor Boulevard. Suite 500
Addison, Texas 75001-9013

APN #: 107-903-44
Propert Address:

16141 QUARTZ ST

WESTMINSTER, CAUFOllNIA 92683


1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1~I11111111111111111111111111

RND20100187502242

Space above ih~ line for Rccurdcr';: ui-c only

Title Ordcr No.: 100378592

Trustee :'hile No.: 20100187502242

NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF NOTICE OF DEFAULT


NOTICE is HEllEBY GIVEN THAT: NnEX WEST, LLC "' ,gent for the beneficimy under a Deed of
Trust dated 1210712007, executed by PAUL NGUYEN ANn LAURA. NGUYEN. as. Trustor. to seeurecertain
obligations in favor of CHASE BANK lJSA,N.A., as Beneficiary Recorded on iiiiil2007 as Instrument No.
2007000731120 of offcial records in the Offce of the Recorder of ORANGE County, Caliornia describing
land therein as more fully described on the above referenced deed trust.
of

Whereas, thc present beneficiary under that certain Deed of Trust herein above described, recorded a

Notice of

Default and Election to SelL. Said Notice was Recorded on 0612812010 as Instrument No. 2010000303698 in

the omce of the Recorder of ORANGE County, California, of oftcini records.

NOW; THEREFORE. NOTICE is IlEREBY GIVEN THAT: the present Beneliciary nnd/or the Trustee,
andlor the agent of the Trustee, does hereby rescind, cancel and withdrmv said

Notice of Breach and Notice of

Default and Election t Sell; it being understood, however, that this resdssion shall nt in any
construed as waiving or affecting any breacb or default past, present at future under

manner be

said Deed or Tnist,or as

impairing any right or remcdy thereunder,but is, and shall be deemed to be, only an clection. without prejudice,
not to cause a sale to he made pursuant to said Notice, and shall no way jeopardize orinipair nny right,

remedy r

privilge secured .to the Beneficiary and/or the Trustee, under said Deed of TlUst, nOr modify nor alter in any
respect any

of the terms, covennnts, conditions or obligations thereof, and said Deed of Trust and all obligations

secured 'hereby are hereby reinstated and shall be and remain in force lind effect the same ~s if said Notice of

Breach and Notice or Default and Election to Sell had not been made and given.

By:

Randy Midc;le~on

Pa~e I of I

FCl!S_NOR_NOD.rpl - (05/12110) / Vcr-12

ORANGE,CA
Document: RE 2010.329423

Page 1 of 1

Printed on 811112010 12:56:22 PM

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 25 of 57 Page ID


#:1212

EXHIBITB

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 26 of 57 Page ID


#:1213

Christo her Yoo


From:
Sent:

paul wynn (mnapauI1@gmail.coml


Monday, November 16, 20098:25 PM
Christopher Yoo
kermitd marsh@yahoo.com
Re: Paul Nguyen v. Chase (AI109.964)

To:
Cc:

Subject:

Except for January 7, 2010, all other dates are opened for me. Please let me know time, date and location. I
believe Judge Matz required Notice Filing of this date also.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Christopher Yoo ~cyoo("adorno.com? wrote:
and

s clerk and she

me the

available dates

settlement conference:
January 7,11,14,21, and 28,2010.

Let us know if

are heard at 3:30 pm.

these dates work for you or you would like additional dates in February or March 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 27 of 57 Page ID


#:1214

XHIBITC

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 28 of 57 Page ID


#:1215

CALIFORNIA

1 MacArthur Place
Suite 200
Santa Ana, California 92707

FLORIDA

GEORGIA

MASSACHUSETIS
MISSOURI

Phone: (714) 852-6800


Fax: (714) 852-6899

NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK

www.adorno.com

TEXAS

WASHINGTON

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Tuyet T. Tran
(714) 852-68DD

ttran@adorno.com

May

27, 2010

VIAFEDEx
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
Attn: Claims Department

17911 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 300


Irvine, California 92614-6253
Re: Policy No.: 27-041-06-22145

Order No.: 30146667


Borrowers: Paul Nguyen and LauraNguyen
Property: 16141 Quartz Street, Westminster, California 92683
NOTICE OF TITLE CLAIM
Dear Sir or Madam:

to represent Chase Bank USA,N.A. ("Chase Bank") and


and inmaking a
lawsuit
the below-referenced
Home") in
Chase Home Finance LLC ("Chase
is the original named insured under
claim under the above-referenced title policy. Chase Bank.
Title Insurance issued on December 13,2007 under Order Number 30146667
the Loan Policy of
Fidelity
National Title hsurance Company ("Fidelity").
("Policy") by
This finn has been retained

obtained

Paul Nguyen and Laura Nguyen (collectively "Plaintiffs")


of

Bank for the sum of $250,000 ("Loan"). The deed


the real property commonly lmownas 16141

Quartz

trust securng the Loan


Street, Westminster, California
as

a loan from Chase


and encumbering
92683

instruent number 2007000731120

("Subject Property") was recorded on December 12, 2007

in the Orange County Official Records ("DOT"). The DOT identifies Chase Bank as the lender,
and Piaintiffs as the borrowers.
enforceability of the DOT is being disputed by
._____~Eiaintiffsjn.JLiaw.suit fi1Qdinfu~JJnitedSJ.at~s Central Distrigt Court andentitled,J-=aul Ngiy,l?l'_
As explained below, the validity and

and Laura Nguyen v. Chase BnkUSA, N.A., et al.,Case No.CV09-4589 AHM (AJWx). A
the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which is the operative complaint, is enclosed
copy of
for your reference in regard to the title claim stated in this letter.

1130552.1

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 29 of 57 Page ID


#:1216

ADORNO Yoss ALVARADO & SMITH


May 27,2010
Page

According to the allegations in the SAC, Plaintiff

Laura Nguyen's signature was

purortedly forged onto the DOT and other documents related to the Loan. See, SAC,,r,r 49-57.
against
Plaintiffs subsequently defaulted on the Loan and foreclosure proceedings were initiated
the Subject Property.

Based on the purported forgery, Plaintiffs have fied the SAC alleging claims for "fraud
by forgery," "rescission and damages pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1635, etseq.," "damages pursuant
to 12 U.S.c. 2607," "unfair business practices," "quiet title," and "preliminary injunction."
the DOT due to the alleged forged signature on the
See, SAC. In short, Plaintiffs seek to rescind
pursuant to the
allegations, and
DOT and other documents related to the Loan. Based on these
Fidelity
defense of this action to
terms of the subject title policy, Chase Bank hereby tenders its
losses sustained by Chase Bank as a result of the claims made
and requests indemnity against all
by Plaintiffs.

Accordingly, CLAIM is HEREBY MADE to Fidelityon the above-referenced title


policy that Fidelity (i) provide a defense for Chase Bank in the lawsuit and against all such
losses resulting from the
claims asserted in the lawsuit and (ii) indemnify Chase Bank for all
claims made in the lawsuit.

Upon your receipt of this Notice of Claim, please contact the undersigned to
Fidelity wil honor its
policy and accept this claim.
acknowledge Fidelity's receipt of this claim and to let us know whether

Sincerely,

ADORNO YOSS ALVARO & SMITH


A Professional Corporation

ii
'/..'~Ur____
"j; V .V

Tuyet T. Tran

Enclosure

1130552.1

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 30 of 57 Page ID


#:1217
Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahiv1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2,J1",09 Page 1 of 21

FILO

1 PAUL NGUYN
NGUYN
LAUR

2 16141 QUARTZ STREET

WESTMISTER, CA 92683

3 TELEPHONE: (714) 360-7602

2009HOV 23 PM 2: 00
CLERK i u.s. DiSTRICT COURt
CEHTR At D1sr. onrA lifo

LOS ANGELES

4 Plaintiffs

In Pro Persona

BY

6
7
8

UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

i'

1 1

12 PAUL NGUYEN, an individual; and


LAURA NGUYEN, an individual,
13

Plaintiffs,
14

v.

15
16 .

17

Chase Bank USA, N.A.; Chase Home


finance, LLC; First American Loanstar
Trustee Services; Joseph SonCao Tran,

18 an Individual; and DOES 1 through 50,


inclusive,
19

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

20' Defendants.
21

22

COMES NOW, Plaintiffs PAUL NGUYEN AND LAURA NGUYEN


23

24

(hereinafter "Plaintiffs" or "NGUYEN") file this civil action alleging that their
II

26

ii

27
II

28

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 31 of 57 Page ID


Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahl";-AJW Document
96 Filed 1112..;i009 Page 2 of 21
#:1218

INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF CONTROVERY


2
3

1.

Tnis is a Truth-in- Lending ('TILA") and Real Estate Settlement Procedure AC

4
("RESPA") case in which Plaintiff

enter into a loan and PAUL NGUYEN and his wife LAUR NGUYEN
executed a deed of trst encumbering their home ("Mortgage Loan") through the

7
use of

Paul Nguyen was fraudulently induced to

unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation ofthe Truth-in-

Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, as well as state

laws. Fraudulent representations concerning the payment terms of the Mortgage

10

enter into the

Loan were made to the Plaintiffs to induce PAUL NGUYEN to


1 1
i i

disclosures in relation to the Mortgage

Mortgage Loan. In addition, material

12

Loan, required pursuant to the Truth-in-Lending Act and its implementing

13

Procedures Act

Regulation, and required pursuant to the Real Estate Settement

14

and its implementing Reguiation, were concealed from the NGUYEN. Nor were

15
notices of

the NGUYEN provided with a proper number of

16
17

the transaction within the time period required by law, all in violation of
PLAINTIFFS' clearly established Tights under federal and state. statutory and

18

Bank USA N.A., and/or its agent,

common law. In addition, Defendant Chase

19
intentionally forged the signature of

20
21

their right to cancel

Plaintiff

LAURA NGUYEN onto the Deed

of Trust and other documents related to the Mortgage Loan with the intention of
knowing
from

harming the Plaintiffs as part ofa scheme to prevent the Plaintiffs

22

prior to entering into that

the true term and conditions ofthe Mortgage Loan

23

from rescinding the Mortgage Loan

Mortgage Loan and preventing the Plaintiffs

24
conditions of

if and when they ever discovered the true terms and

25

the MOligage

Loan by using the forged Deed of Trust as the basis for arguing that the

26
... YlaintiifLJight tQ. re~c;ind th~~M2ijgag~ Lq(.!li:I!gerJederal J:~VI~h~g~~pir!a:

27
28
- 2-

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 32 of 57 Page ID


Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-AhlV1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2,J/2009 Page 3 of 21
#:1219

2.

This action seeks rescission ofthe Mortgage Loan and statutory, compensatory,

the NGUYEN's federal and

and punitive damages to vindicate the violation of

state rights.
3.

punish and set example for the wrongful conduct in violating federal and state

6
7

The NGUYEN also seeks punitive damages against the Defendants in order to

laws resulting in injury and damages to the NGUYEN.


4.

The NGUYEN also seeks reasonable costs oflitigation, including, but not
limited to, attorneys' fees.

10

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1 1
L i

5.
12
13

This action arises under 15 U.S.C. 1635,12 C.F.R. 226,15 U.S.C. 2601
and 2614, 12C.F.R. 3500, and under California statutory and common law.

6.

14

This Cour has jurisdiction over the Federal c1aimsin this action based on 18

U.S.c. 1331 and 1343 and 42 U.S.C. 1983 which confer original

15

address the deprivation of rights

jurisdiction on federal distrct courts in suits to

16

Cour also has supplemental jurisdiction over the

secured by federal law. This

17
are

pendant state law claims becausethe state law claims

18

or controversy under Article III of the

claim that they form part of the same case

19

20

United States Constitution, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.


7.

21

involved real propert is located in the Central District of California. Therefore,

23

venue properly lies in this District, pursuant to 12 U.S.c. 2614 and 28 U.S.C.

24

26
27

The unlawful conduct, ilegaLpractices, andactscomplainedQf alleged iiithis


complaint were all commtted in the Central Distrct of California and the

22

25

so related to the federal

1391(b).
II

II
II

28

- 3 -

SECOl\TJ VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 33 of 57 Page ID


#:122096 Filed 11/2.)12009 Page 4 of 21
Ca v 2:09-cv-04589-hivl-JW Document

PARTIES
2
3

Plaintiff
8.

Plaintiff

PAUL NGUYEN and LAURA NGUYEN are resident ofVvestminster,

California, and the real propert secured by a deed of trst under the Mortgage

Loan is located in Westminster, California.

6
7
8

10

Defendants
9.

thereon allege, that Defendant Chase

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and

Bank USA, N.A. (hereinafter "Chase Bank") is a national banking institution


whose exact business form is unknown and at all times mentioned herein was

conducting business in California. Plaintiffs a informed and believe that

1 1

.l.l

the Mortgage Loan.

Defendant Chase Bank is the owner of

12
13

10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant Chase
Home Finance LLC ("Chase Home Finance") is a wholly owned subsidiary of

14

conducting business in

Chase Bank and at all times mentioned herein was

15

California. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant Chase Home

16

the Mortgage Loan.

Finance is the servicer of

17
18

1 1. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant First
American Loanstar Trustee Services ("Trustee Services") whose exact business

19

herein was conducting business in

form is unr-..own and at all times mentioned

20

California. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant Trustee Services

21
the

is the subsequent trstee of

22
23

Mortgage Loan and

27

Chase Bank.

Cao Son Tran, a licensed real estate broker and Notary Public which licenses

Real Estate, at all time mentioned

were issued by the California Department of

26

agent of

12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant Joseph

24
25

an

herein acting on behalf ofhil1self, Sydney Funding, Nexus Escrow and Realty
. Savers.andis_auJlent a~1illg on behalf of Chase Ban, was conductil1g~"L~11~a~.

in California.

28
-4-

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 34 of 57 Page ID


#:1221
C e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahl\l-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2012009 Page 5 of21
1

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

licensed real estate

or about October 2007, Joseph Son Cao Tran was a

13. On

Real Estate and

broker which license was issued by the California Departent of

employed by REALTY SAVERS, also a California licensed real estate company


who operated under a California designated licensed broker, Nguyen Paul Tuan,

7
8

Paul Nguyen that he was properly

Plaintiff

14. Joseph Son Cao Tranrepresented to

to herein.

referred

and happenings

at the time of the events

licensed under California laws asa mortgage broker and possessed expertise as a

10

to serve as Plaintiff

that qualified

mortgage broker in real estate lending

11
and to

Nguyen's mortgage broker,

find aresidentialmortgage loan best suited to

12
Plaintiff

financial

Paul Nguyen's

Paul

to explain to

situation and needs, and

13

Plaintiff

mortgage loan.

the details of any proposed residential

14

Paul Nguyen to fill

out the

15. Defendant Joseph Son Cao Tran assisted Plaintiff

15

loan application and met with Defendant JosephSonCao Tran multiple times to

16
17

offices.

18

never

16. Defendant Joseph Son Cao Tran

19

20
21

at Defendant REALTY SAVERS'

documents

provide him with the requested

provided Plaintiff

PAUL NGUYEN with

"Good Faith Estimate" ofloan cost.

l7. On or about November 21,2007, Defendant JosephSonCao Tran represented to


Plaintiff PAUL NGUYEN that he and his company has secured a loan through

22
Defendant Chase Bank.

23
18. Plaintiff

Paul Nguyen

24
iather than as joint tenant with Plaintiff

25
19. On or about December 7, 2007,

26

loan as an individual

agreed to proceed with the mortgage

Laura

Nguyen.

Defendaiit JosephSon Cao Tran asked Plaintiff

. _.~~~Faul~Nguyellto--.ome_to..exus~EscIQw JO_~sigILmQitgg.ge ClQG.lmel1 ts :__.___...

27
28
- 5 -

SECOND VERIFIED AMNDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 35 of 57 Page ID


#:1222
Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahiv1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2.:12009 Page 6 of 21

20. Up to December 7, 2007, Defendant Joseph Son Cao Tran didnot provide

Paul Nguyen with any document related to the mortgage loan.

Plaintiff

121. Neither Defendant Joseph Son Cao TrannOl SYDNEY FUNDING disclosed the

4
5

relationship between SYDNEY FUNDING and NEXUS ESCROW to Plaintiff.


22.

6
7

December 7, 2007 to signed mortgage documents.


23.

PAUL NGUYEN appeared at Defendant NEXUS ESCROW on

Plaintiff

did not appear at NEXUS ESCROW to sign

LAURA NGUYEN

Plaintiff

documents, nor was requested to do so.


24.

10

loan, also appeared at NEXUS ESCROW and acted as notary public of

11

PAUL NGUYEN.

documents that signed by Plaintiff

12

25.

13

Paul Nguyen executed a promissory note and security agreement for

Plaintiff

that purpose, which transaction is a consumer credit transaction within the

14
TIL

meaning of

15

26.

16
17

Plaintiff

A, 15 U.S.c. 1602 andRegulationZ 226.2.6.


note and security

never executed a promissory

Laura Nguyen

agreement for that purpose.


27.

On

Plaintiff

Laura

never appeared before a notar public, Joseph Son Cao

Laura Nguyen

20
Tran or received two

signature of

Trust.

Nguyen to the Deed of

28.

forged

January 2009, Plaintiffs discovered

or about

18
19

aranging the

Defendant Joseph Son Cao Tran, acting as a licensed broker in

(2)

Right to Cancel from any person

copies of a Notice of

'" 1

"' 1

22

or entity, or from the notary.


29. Plaintiff Laura Nguyen are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that all

23
Plaintiff

purported signatures of

24
25

26

Laura Nguyen that were affixed on mortgage

loan is forgeries which included the deed of trust in connection \vith the
Mortgage Loan and were affixed on said documents by Defendants.
.30.;-A-&-a-fesult.Gf.the.~f.ailure-of.Chae-tQ-pm:v:ide-alLoLthedisclsllIes.r.equired hy_

27
state and federal law, and as a result of

the false, fraudulent, and/or deceitful

28
- 6-

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 36 of 57 Page ID


#:1223
C e 2:09-cv-04589-Ah!v1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/02009 Page 7 of 21
1

the Mortgage

representations made tothePlaintiffsconceming the tenus of

2
3

Loan, Plaintiffs are entitled to rescind the Mortgage Loan.


31. On April 6, 2009, Plaintiffs sent via U.S. PosIcertied mail, notified Chase of

their rescission of the loan under TILA and offer to tender. Additional copies

were also sent via U.S. Post certified mail to Chase Home Finance LLC, c/o

First American Loan Star Trustee Services and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA clo

7
8

Chase Home Finance LLC.


32.

13, 2009, Plaintiffs again sent via U.S. Post certied mail,

Again, on April

under TILA and offer to tender.

notified Chase of their rescission of the loan

10

33.

thereon allege, that the Defendant

believe, and

Plaintiffs are also informed and

11

disclosing the Truth-in-

its agents conspired to withhold

and one or more of

12
by federal law and that, in furtherance of

Form required

Lending Disclosure

13

Nguyen's signatures on the

Laura

Plaintiff

conspiracy, the Defendant forged

14
Deed of

15

16
17
18
19

34. That the Mortgage loan entered into is a federally related mortgage loan as that
at 12 U.S.C.
Estate Settlement Procedures Act
the Real
term is defined in

2602(1).
35. Defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A.; Chase Home Finance, LLC; First American

Loanstar Trustee Services; and Joseph Son Cao Tranare individuals and

20

22

provide applications for

36. In addition to acting as the mortgage broker andChase's agent in the transaction

Mortgage Loan, Sydney Funding and Sidney

resulting in the entering into of the

24
Tran also acted as

the SettlementAgenttli.lOughits wholly owned subsidiary

25
NEXUS ESCROW in

27

and

home mortgage to consumers.

23

26

credit

offer or extend

businesses that regularly

ri i
.. 1

signatures.

and ratified such forged

Trust or authorized

said

connection

with

the

consuIlationand closing of the

~~~~~~Mortgage-Loan.~~Nei1beLy-dney-Funding,jts~J2iincil)als nor Cliase ~~L ..~ .~.~~......

disclosed to the Plaintiffs thatthe entity acting as Mortgage Broker would also

28

. 7 -

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 37 of 57 Page ID


#:1224
C e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahiv1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/()l2009 Page 8 of 21
1

be acting as the Settlement Agent and would be receiving fees and other fuds in

the final

connection with such role at any time prior to the delivering of

4
5

Settlement Statement to Plaintiff after entering into the lv10rtgage Loan.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Chase gave and
value
Sydney Funding accepted and received fees, payments and other things of

6
7

in return for the referral of the Mortgage Loan by Sydney Funding to Chase.

Such giving accepting of the settlement agent fees and other things of value in

8
return for the referral of

10

1i
12

violation of 12 U.S.C. 2607(a).


37. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that Defendant Joseph Son Cao Iran

acted as broker in arranging such mortgage loan ilegally acted as notary public.
38. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that because of the

13
forgery of

14
because of

15

16

the Mortgage Loan by Sydney Funding to Chase was in

Plaintiff

Laura Nguyen's signature to one or more documents, and

the failure to deliver required form under Truth-in-Lending

Disclosure to the Plaintiffs prior to the closing of the Mortgage Loan, the value
services
of Sydney Funding's mortgage brokeringservices and its settlement

17
18

provided by its wholly owned subsidiary, Nexus Escrow, was $ 0.00. Plaintiffs'
further allege that, since Sydney Funding and its subsidiary were paid and

19
received a fee from Chase as mortgage broker in excess of$lO,OOO.OO, such

20

payment to Sydney Funding and its subsidiary represented payment for services

" 1

"' 1

22
23

24
25

26

that were not actually performed in violation of 12 U.S.C. 2607(b).


39. The acceptance of fees from Chase by Defendants SYDNEY FUNDING, Sidney

Tran, NEXUS ESCROW, John Nguyen and Joseph Son Cao Tran for
performing broker services that were not actually performed and Chase's
payment of that fee for broker activities represents an unlawful kickback and/or
-.uBgamed-fee-uuder-RSEAbe.cause_tlie.amQllnt received by these Defen~(l?-t~

27
28
-8-

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 38 of 57 Page ID


#:1225
C e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahlvl-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/L,)J2009 Page 9 of 21
1

2
3

4
5

6
7

and paid by Chase was not reasonably related to the performance of lawful
services.
40. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon alege, that Chase should have

mown that Sydney Funding, Sidney Tran, Nexus Escrow, John Nguyen, and

Joseph Son Cao Tran did not earn the broker fees because common industr

practices are that lenders follow underwting standards that demand a review of
know that
originations by mortgage brokers and, therefore, lenders typically

10
1 i

12
13

14
15

16

brokers have performed the services required and in a lawful manner. Plaintiffs
are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that if Chase had reviewed the loan

origination documents properly, either before or after the closing of the


Mortgage Loan, Chase would have learned of the obvious indications that

Sydney Funding was not properly performng its role as a mortgage broker.
41. Plaintiffs also allege that neither Sydney Funding, Sidney Tran or Joseph Son

Cao Tran ever offered Plaintiffs the option to pay a lower amount of settlement

fees and charges in addition to failing to disclose to Plaintiffs that Sydney

Funding would also be performng services as the Settlement Agent through its

17

connection with the Mortgage Loan and Joseph Son

wholly owned subsidiary in

18

at the time of settlement.

Cao Tran would also be performng notary services

19

42. The agency responsible for enforcing RESPA. and its implementing regulation,

20
Regulation X, the United

21

22
23

24

States Department of Housing and Urban

Development ("HUD"), issued a Statement of Policy in 1 999 establishing two -

part test for determning the legality of certain lender payment to mortgage
brokers under RESP A as follows:
(1) Vlhether goods or facilities were actually furnished or the servi ces were

25
actually furished or the services were actually performed for the

26

...... ---oompensatioll-paid,-and;----

27
28
-9-

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 39 of 57 Page ID


#:1226
Ca 2:09-cv-04589-Ahlvl-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2.JI009 Page 10 of 21
1

(2) Whether the payments are reasonably related to the value of the goods or
2

facilities that were actually furnished or services that were actually

performed.
43. In 2001, BUD clarified its interpretation of 2607(a) and (b) when it issued its

5
Policy 2001-1 entitled Clarification of

RESPA Statement of

Policy 2001-1.)

Concerning Unearned Fees Under Section8(b). ("Statement of

BUD's 2001- 1 Policy of Statement explains that the second prong of its two-part

test to determne the legality of lender payments to mortgage brokers may not be

10

satisfied when the loan brokers does not offer the borrower the option to pay a

ii

lower amount of total fees upfront.


44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Chase and others

13

knowingly and wilfully conspired and agreed among themselves to commt the

14
acts described of

15

16

herein with the intent to deprive Plaintiff of an amount to be

deteni1Ined and proven at trial but in an amountthat exceeds $ 15,000.00.


45. Plaintiffs. are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Chase andits agents

17
did the acts and things herein alleged

18
conspiracy and

19

Policy

1999- 1 Regarding Lender Payments to Mortgage Brokers, and Guidance

12

Statement of

46.

pursuant to, and in furtherance of, the

above-alleged agreement.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe,

and thereon allege, that Chase and its agent

20

or lend aid and encouragement to, or

furthered the conspiracy by cooperation


" 1

22
23

24
25

26
27

ratified and adopted the acts of each other.


47. As a proximate result of the nrongful acts herein aleged, Plaintiffs has suffered

damages in an amount to be determined and proven at trial but in an amount that


exceed $15,000.00.

48. In conspiring and acting in concert as herein alleged, Chase, either directly or
... . ... ..throughth-GGnduct,authoriz;ation~or~ratification..y_a Chase~QfficeL~din:~ctQi'9I.

managing agent, acted wilfully and with the intent to cause injury to the

28
- 10 -

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 40 of 57 Page ID


#:1227
Ca 2:09-cv-04589-Ahlv1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2..I009 Page 11 of 21

conscious

malice, oppression, and/or fraud in

Plaintiff. Chase is guilty of

disregard of the Plaintiffs' rights, thereby waranting an assessment of punitive

damages in an amount appropriate to punish Chase and to deter others from

engaging in similar conduct.

6
FOR

FIRST CLAIM

Defendant Chase,.Joseph.SonCao Tran,

(Against

and DOES 1 - 50 for Fraud bv Fon!ery)


49.

by reference in this Claim for Relief each

Plaintiffs re-al1egeand incorporate

10

above.

allegation set forth in paragraph 1 through 48

11

RELIEF

50. On or about December 7,2007, Chaseand/or its agents intentionally forged

12
13

15

Plaintiffs.
51. The forgery by Chase and/or its agents was undertaken as part of a scheme to (i)

16
prevent

terms

the true

Plaintiffs from knowing

17
18

19
terms and

that the

21

22
believe, and

52. Plaintiffs are informed and

thereon allege, that Chase and/or its

23

Laura Nguyen on the Deed

agents knew that (i) forged signatures ofthe Plaintiff

24
other dOCll'Tents related

25
forged signatures

27

MortgageLoan

Plaintiffs' right to rescind the

had expired.

under federal law

of Trst and

(ii) preventing Plaintiffs

by using the forged deed of trust as

conditions of thel'v1ortgage Loan

the legal basis for arguing

conditions of the Mortgage

when they ever discover the tre

and

from rescinding the Mortgage Loan if

and

and

Mortgage Loan

Loan prior to entering into that

26

Trust and other

Mortgage Loan with the intention of harmng the

documents related to the

14

of

Laura Nguyen onto the Deed

the Plaintiff

signature of

of

to the Mortgage Loan, or (ii) knew of the

the Plaintiff on the DeedofTrust,cOl1spired to defraud the

.._...Plairitiff~-f0F.thereason-that.the Jorged.signatuesoLthe_P-lajntiff LflJJraJig1lY~lL..


on the Deed of Trust and the other documents related to the Mortgage Loan were

28
- 11 -

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 41 of 57 Page ID


#:1228
Ca 2:09-cv-04589-Ahlv!-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2JI009 Page 12 of 21

undertaken to further the fraud of concealng from the Plaintiffs the true teims
2

and conditions of the Mortgage Loan and to thereafter create and unlawful

Plaintiffs in the

defense to any attempted rescission ofthe Mortgage Loan by the

event the Plaintiffs discovered the tre terms and conditions of the Mortgage

6
7

federal law.

53.

The forgery

of

Right to Cancel were made with the

addition to failure to provide Notice of

intent to deceive Plaintiffs and to deprive them of their rights under California

10

and federal law.


54.

12

Laura Nguyen' signatures and

Plaintiff

At the time that the forgeries of

concealment from PlaintIff of the tre terms and conditions of the Mortgage

13

Loan, Plaintiffs were unaware of the fact that her signature had been, or were to

14

Trust and other documents related to the Mortgage

be, forged on the Deed of

15

16

Trust, in

Laura Nguyen's signature on the Deed of

Plaintiff

11

rescission under California and or

their rights of

Loan and attempted to assert

Loan and were unaware of the tre terms and conditions of the Mortgage Loan.

55.

the

Plaintiffs relied to their detriments onthe aforementioned concealment of

17

Mortgage Loan which concealment was

tre terms and conditions of the

18
the

effectuated by the withholding of

19

disc1

0 sure under

the Truth-in-Lending as

required by federal1aw and by forging the Plaintiffs' signatures on said Deed of

20
Trust for the fraudulent purpose of

21

using the forged Deed of Trust as a basis for

Plaintiffs oftheIr legal rights pursuant to California and federal


the

depriving the

22

law in the event the Plaintiffs learned the true terms and provisions of

23
Mortgage Loan.

24

56.

the signature of
Chase and/or its agents intentionally forged

25
Deed of

26

Trust and

the Plaintiff on the

to the Mortgage Loan proximately

other documents related

. .. ... .resulting-in.ha.sli.f.feredby.beth;Plaillti:tIs.-..~~~-~..~.~ ...... .~~

27
28
- 12 -

SECOND VERIFIED AMNDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 42 of 57 Page ID


#:1229
Ca 2:09-cv-04589-Ahlvl-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2:.i009 Page 13 of 21

57. The aforementioned acts, omissions, and fraud by forgery conducted by Chase

and/or its agents alleged above were fraudulent, malicious and oppressive

conduct which subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious

4
disregard of

Plaintiffs' rights, and constituted despicable conduct by said

Plaintiffs' rights, so as to

and conscious disregard of

Defendants with a wilful

justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages against said defendants.

7
SECOND

RELIEF

CLAIM FOR

8
and

(Against Defendant Chase,

Pursuant to .12U .S.C. .1635, et.seg.)

10

58. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference in this Claim for Relief each

11

above.

allegation set forth in paragraph 1 through 57

12

59. The Mortgage Loan is subject to the federal Truth-in-Lending Act and its

13

implementing regulation, Regulation Z, becausethe Borrower under the

14
Mortgage Loan, Paul Nguyen, is an

15

individual and not a corporation,

partership, or other entity, and because llaintiffPaulNguyen used the loan


purposes, and because the amount

16

proceeds for

personal, family, or household

17
borrowed was, and is, subject to a

18

finance

charge and

is to be repaid in 5 or more

installments, and because the Mortgage Loanis secured by Plaintiffs' principal

19

dwelling. Furthermore, the lvlortgage Loan is not subject to any of the

20

and Regulation Z and it was

exemptions set forth in the Truth.:in.:Lending Act

22

Damages

DOEST - 50forRescission and

not a loan for business purposes.


160.

23

24

Because of

the

Mortgage Loan is subject to the Truth-in-Lending Act and

Regulation Z, Chase and its agents were required to deliver tothe Plaintiffs,
Right to CanceL. Chase and
among other things, Good Faith EstIiiiate,Notice of

25 I its agents failed to deliver the required

disclosures and Right to Cancel to

26 I
2 71-- .~~~Plajntiffbaura-Nguyen-;~.-~~ . . ... ... ..... ...~--_.. . . ~~_._~~~~~
161. Therefore, the right to rescind the Mortgage Loan is extended to three-years.
28

- 13 -

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 43 of 57 Page ID


#:1230
Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-AhiV-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2~I009 Page 14 of 21

62.

Chase Home Finance, and Trustee Servces of rescission of the Mortgage Loan

and tender under such rescission.


63. Chase, Chase Home Finance, and Trustee Services failed to take actions as

required under the Truth-in-Lending Act and Regulation Z upon receipt of

6
7

laws by noify Chase,

Plaintiffs exercised its rights under California and federal

rescission of the Mortgage Loan.

64. As a direct and proximate result ofDefendants failure to take action in response

Rescission, Plaintiffs suffered damages in an

to Plaintiffs' proper Notice of

amount to be proven at tral.

10
FOR

THIRD CLAIM

RELIEF

11
Chase

(Against Defendant

12
for

13

65.

Home

Pursuant tol2 U.S.C. 2607)

Damages

reference in this Claim for Relief each

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by

14

64 above.

allegation set forth in paragraph 1 through

15

66. The Mortgage Loan is a federally related mortgage loan and is subject to the

16

and

federal Real Estate Procedures Act (RESPA)

17
18
19

20
21

22
23

its implementing regulation,

Regulation X.

67.

Paul Nguyen sent a Qualified Written

On or about April 8, 2009, Plaintiff

Request ("Qw'R") via U.S. Post Certified lvfail with return receipt to Chase

Home Finance, LLC.


68. The return receipt indicated that the QWR was delivered to Chase Home

Finance, LLC on April 8, 2009 and received by J 00 Cowans.


69. The QWR contained information to enable Defendant Chase Home Finance,

24
LLC to identify Plaintiff

25

DOES 1 - 50

Finance,LLC, and

Paul

Nguyen's

loan

and also contained request for

information of the loan, specifically accumulated late charges and fees despite

.----- 26 _ .----Platntiflsvali-NticeofRescission-of.tli.e-lofrIl-fIldofferto-teIlGer.-

27
28
- 14 -

SECOND VERIFIED AMNDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 44 of 57 Page ID


#:1231
Ca 2:09-cv-04589-Ahl\l-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2;'1009 Page 15 of 21

70.

requested Defendant Chase Home Loan, LLC as servicer of the loan to make

necessary correction to the loan such as late charges and fees, accounting of

payment made to date and costs associated with foreclosure so that proper

7
8

the rescission and

The QWR notified Defendant Chase Home Loan, LLC of

rescission tender of the loan can be made.


71. Furthermore, Plaintiff requested Chase Home Loan, LLC to make proper credit

reporting reflecting Plaintiff's pending Notice ofRescIssion.


Plaintiff's QWR.
72.
Defendant Chase Home Finance, LLC never responded to

73. Because the Mortgage Loan is subject toRESPA and Regulation X, all

10

Defendants were required to comply with Section 6 of RESP A appearing at 12

11
6 violations

U.S.C. 2605. Section

12
13

by Regulation X and 24

are further defined

C.F.R. 3500.21 (e) as "Duty ofloan servicer to respond to borrower inquiries."


74.

14

Chase Home Finance violated Section

of

Regulation X upon receipt of

Plaintiffs' Qualified Written Request("QWR") including but not limited to:


Plaintiff's Qualified

15

upon receipt

a. Failure to response and take action

16

of

Written Request as required by laws.

17

18

charges orpenalties, and transmit to the

including the crediting of any late

19

the correction.

borrower a written notification of

20
c. Failure to

protect

the borrower,

corrections in the account of

b. Failure to make appropriate

Plaintiffs'

credit rating

upon

receipt of Plaintiffs

"QWR"

21
by continuing to fuish adverse information regarding payment to credit

22

603 of

reporting agencies as defined in section

23

24

Act, 15 U.S.C. l681a.

75.

As a direct and proximate

25
by Chase Home Finance,

26

the Fair Credit Reporting

result of the violations ofRESPi~A and Regulation X

Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount to be proven

, . 1

dl lHdi.

27
28
- 15 -

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 45 of 57 Page ID


#:1232
C e 2:09-cv-04589-AhIVl-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2ol009 Page 16 of 21

RELIEF

1
FOURTH

CLAIM FOR

2
3

(Against Defendant Chase, Chase Home Finance, LLC; Joseph Son Cao Tran;
Practice - Business
to CaliorniaUnair Business

and DOES 1 - 50 Pursuant

4
5

and Professions 17200 et.seq.)

76. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference in this Claim for Relief each

6
7
8

allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 75 above.


77. Defendants have falsely, fraudulently and deceitfully represented to the
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs as aforesaid which representations were relied upon by the

9
the Mortgage Loan and to the damage of

resulting in consummation of

10

i1

Plaintiffs

in violation of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, as afmesaid.


Finance LLC violated the
78.
These Defendants along with Chase, Chase Home

12

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as set forth herein and the allegations of

13

14

which are hereby incorporated in this cause of action by this reference.


79. These Defendants acted in concert with Chase forged the signature of Plaintiff

15

Trust.

Laura Nguyen onto the Deed of

16

80. Such unfair, fraudulent and deceptive acts and omissions, and violation of state

17

law are unfair business practices and constitute a violation of California

18

common law and California Business & Professions Code i 7200, et seq.

19

Plaintiffs reserve the right to identify additional unfair, fraudulent, or deceptive

20

practices, or unlawful or unfair practices, by Defendants as may be established

21

22

through discovery.

81.

As direct and proximate result of

23
describe above, as well as the result of

24
25

the unfair, fraudulent, and deceptive conduct

their unlawful and unfair business

practices as described above, this Defendant has been and wil be unjustly
enriched.

26
.82 ;-piain-f'f-s,pursuaIlt-to-CalifOll1ia-Riisinss&llQIessiQilsC~de 1 7 ~Q~,_s.~eJ~ an_...

27
order of

this Cour enjoining these Defendants from further withholding and

28
- 16 -

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 46 of 57 Page ID


Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-AhIVl-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2,:I009 Page 17 of 21
#:1233
1

Plaintiffs as a

due to the

property

monies, funds and

confiscating any of the

result of the unfair business practices alleged herein, and compelling this

Defendant to:

for all funds unfairly, unlawfully,

a. Make restitution to Plaintiffs

5
and

fraudulently, and deceptively obtained

retained by all Defendants

identified herein and/or its agent as a result of the wrongful acts as alleged

common law and California

of California

herein and their violation

Business &Professions Code l7200etseq.; and


9

acquired and retained by all Defendants identified

b. Disgorge all revenues

10
herein and/or its

the unfair, fraudulent, deceptive,

agent asa result of

11
unlawful business

practices

herein; and

alleged

12
c. To take steps

and sufficiently necessary to rescind

and actions reasonably

13
and

the Mortgage Loan and to void any

all

deeds of

14

Mortgage Loan.

documents pertaining to the property securing the

15

83.

Plaintiffs are entitled

of

to restitution

their property (tangible and intangible) and

16
money

funds

and funds, as that propert, money and

17
wrongful actions and

18

19

21
wrongful actions

22

27

identified herein and/or its

complete remedy for Defendhl1tsindentifiedherein and/ori ts agent's

and conduct, including without limitation, injunctive relief,

restitution, and restoration of their unencumbered title interest in the real

23

26

Defendants

84. Plaintiffs also seek such additional equitablereliefas may be necessary to


provide a

25

alL

existed priorto the

agent.

20

24

conduct of

trst or other legal

property.
, 85.

as
Pursuant to federal1aw, Defendants indentifiedherein, acting

a lender, owed

statutory duties to the Plaintiffs.


-86;--Bespite-the-statutoi:dut-ies-Owed-io-the-PJaintiffs,Defendants id~J1ifie(:Ll1tieilJ_

violated those statutory duties and, as a result thereof, took advantage of its

28
- 17 -

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 47 of 57 Page ID


Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahlv1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2012009 Page 18 of 21
#:1234

relationship with the Plaintiffs and has been, and is being, unjustly enriched
2
3

thereby.

87. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of fiduciary duties, these

Defendants have been unjustly enriched, and the Plaintiffs have been damaged

in an amount in excess of$25,000.OO.

88. These Defendants, in commtting wrongful acts described herein, acted with

malice, fraud, and oppression toward Plaintiffs, in a conscious disregard of

8
Plaintiffs' rights.

9
FIFTH

10

FOR

CLAIM

RELIEF

(Against Chase, First American Loanstar Trustee Services

il
and

DOES 1-50

For QUIET TITLECaL.CodeCiv.Proc. 761.010 et.seq.)

12
89. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference in this Claim for Relief each

13

1 through 114 above.

allegation set forth in paragraphs

14

American Loanstar Trustee Services wrongfully

90. Defendants Chase and First

15

16

claim an interest in the Property.


91. The Property's legal description is:

17
8977, IN

LOT 44 OF TRACT NO.

18

THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER,

COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ASPER MAP


47 OFIVnSCELLANEOUS

19

RECORDED IN BOOK 369,PAGE(S)46 AND

20
COUNTY

MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE

21

COUNTY.

22
23

Assessor's Parcel No.: 107-903-44

92. Plaintiffs claim title to the Property and seek an order from the Court confirming

24
25

their title.
93. Chase and First American Loanstar Trustee Services claims title to the Property

26
27

RECORDER OF SAID

.by-vrttie-oforged-deed-of-trw;t-andvoided-deed-oLtrust-------94.

this complaint.

A determination is sough as of the filing of

28

- 18 -

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 48 of 57 Page ID


#:1235
Ca 2:09-cv-04589-Al-IVl-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2ji2009 Page 19 of 21

95. Plaintiffs pray for a determnation of their ttleagainst adverse claim.


2

RELIEF

FOR

SIXTH CLAIM

3
and Trustee

(Against All Defendant Chase,

4
5

INJUNCTION)
96. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference in this Claim for Relief each

allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through95 above.


97.

this Court,

Plaintiffs move

pursuant to Rule

12

Civil

to encumber the Plaintiffs interest in that propert. In support of their Motion,


the Plaintiffs state as follows:
suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the Defendants

a. The Plaintiffs wil

14
should

16

Federal Rules of

in the NGUYEN residence located at 1614 i Quartz Street, Westminster, CA or

13

15

the

any interest putatively held by the Defendants

from taking any action to transfer

11

65 of

Injunction against the Defendants enjoining them

Procedure, for a Preliminary

10

PRELIMINARY

Services For

transfer any interest

in the NGUYEN

property;

b. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law should the Defendants affect


such a transfer;

17
c. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims;

18

d. The balance of the hardships tips decidedly in favor of granting the

19
requested injuncIon, inasmuch

20
21

22

as the cost to

the Defendants of enjoining

any such transfer is negligible when compared to the potential harm the

Plaintiffs face if they lose their dwelling and property prior to these
proceedings ending.

23

24
25

PRAYER FOR RELIEF


WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray forjudgment against these Defendants, as to all

causes-factions~arlo-ilDws--------- . -- - --- --- --27

1. For general and special damages according to proof;

28

- 19 -

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 49 of 57 Page ID


#:1236
Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahlv1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2,.)I009 Page 20 of 21
1

2. For exemplary and punitive damages;

2
3

3. For Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs necessar to obtain these
relief;

the Mortgage Loan;

4. For rescission of

Trust in connection with the Mortgage Loan.

5. For an order voiding any Deed of

6
7

6. For permanent injunction against this Defendant, its subsidiary, affiliates,


employees, and all persons
successors, agents, servants, officers, directors,

9
10

acting in concert with them, directly or indirectly, from engaging in the


improper, unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, and/or deceptive conduct as descried

above and according to proof;

1
7. For an order of

restitution requiring this Defendant to disgorge all revenues

12

unlawful, unfair,

acquired from Plaintiffs by means of

13

14
15

16
17
18

fraudulent and/or

deceptive acts or practices as more fully described above and according to


proof;
8. For prejudgment interest as allowed by law;

9. For an order that this Defendant involuntary trstee for the proceeds and
property resulting from Chase and/or its agent's wrongful actions of all
acquired by them;
money, proceeds and propert wrongfully

19

lO.For declaration and order that this Defendant release and re-convey any deed

20
of trst or other document signed or entered into and subsequently recorded in

21

Mortgage

connection with the

Loan;

22

trst and any other document signed or

11 .For an order voiding any deed of

23
entered into by either or both of

24
25
26
27

the Plaintiffs in connection with the mortgage

loan;
12.For an order requiring this Defendant to return allI1ol1ies, proceeds, payrreiits,

.. funds,-revenues,-f-ees-and-theJike-acquiredIromeitheLPlaintiff(l~UlI~Sl11t QfQ:r

arising from the Mortgage Loan;

28
- 20 -

SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 50 of 57 Page ID


#:1237
C e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahiv1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2012009 Page 21 of 21

return of any loan proceeds;

13.For an order Forfeiture of

2
3

l4.For statutory damages according to proof;


is .For costs of suit herein incured; and

4
5

just and proper.

as this Court may deem

16.For such other and further relief

Dated: November 21,2009

6
7
8
9

10
11

LauE%~

12
13

14

VERIFICATION

15

16 I verify that the foregoing Verified Second Amended Complaint has been
are true and

17 reviewed by me; and that the allegations therein

correct to the best of my

18 knowledge, information, and belief.

19 I declare under penalty of peijury that the foregoing is true and correct.
.~

20 Executed in Westminster, California on November21, 2009.


21

22
23

24

u_--t~-

25

26

.. .. ,

27
28

- 21 SECOND

VERIFIED AMENDED

COMPLAINT

Page 1 of 1
(800)683-7648
ovemitooxpres .m - MSIE
8.0
Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW
Document
131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 51 of 57 Page ID
#:1238

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I111I11I111111

20383A1D07 ~\/1

Next Day Overnite .. P

Zone:105
Bill To:20393 Date: 5/28/2010
From:

Lisa West

Alvarado, Smith - Santa Ana


1 MacArthur Place

Ste:200
Santa Ana, CA 92707

9499556800
Billing Reference:AL 109.964

To:Fidelity National Title Insurance

Company
Claims Department
17911 Von Karman Avenue
Ste:300
Irvine, CA 92614
9999999999

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:

Number of Pieces: 1

Please fold this page in half and place it in the pouch on your shipment. Only one copy is required by Overnlte Express.
WARNING; Use only the printed label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes Is fraudulent and could resuil In additional
billing charges, along with cancelalion of your Overnite Express account or OverniteShip Online Profie. Shiprnents with invalid account or credit card

numbers wil not be delivered.

httos:/ /WViW. overniteexpress.com/ overni teshiponline/ direction! shipmentform. aspx

5/28/2010

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 52 of 57 Page ID


#:1239

EXHIBITD

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 53 of 57 Page ID


#:1240
Christo her Yoo

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

Paul Nguyen (mnapauI1@gmail.comJ


Tuesday, August 17, 20104:38 PM
Christopher Yoo

mnapauI1@gmail.com
Re: Nguyen et.al. v. Chase et.al Confirmation of our telephone discussion

08117/2010

Dear Mr. Yoo: Than you for your time discussing various issues relating to this case.
1. Per our discussion, your co-counsel Tuyet T. Tran is preparing the stipulation to continue trial and leave for

Defendant Chase to file cross-complaint against others on thc issue of forged deed of trust and acknowledgment
of Notice of Right to CanceL. As indicated, I am wiling to such stipulation. This stipulation needed to be done
as soon as possible because of
trial date is scheduled for
09/09/2010.

2. I also informed you that I've unilaterally fied plaintiffs' pre-trial conference statement because your crosscomplaint has not been filed since 05/22/2010. Furthermore, because of the delay in cross-complaint tobe fied
by you, the court has set an OSC Re dismissal for failure to prosecute the case and I have no choice but must
response to the Court's OSc.

3. You informed me that Chase has filed its claim with title insurance for the forged documents.
4. Your office wil contact magistrate judge and schedule as soon as possible date for mediation and I wil

make myself available to accommodate whatever date magistrate judge is available.


5. I reminded you of

the final pre-trial conference on August 23,2010.

6. I also informed you that I had a discussion with Mr. Marsh, counsel for Mr. Joseph Tran and I will dismiss

Mr. Tran from this action. However, you indicated that Mr. Tran may be subject to cross-complaint by you.
Should the substance of our conversation is different, Please inform me as soon as possible.
Best Regards
Paul Nguyen

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 54 of 57 Page ID


#:1241

EXHIBITE

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 55 of 57 Page ID


#:1242
Christo her Yoo

From:

Paul.NguyenlmnapauI1@gmail.comJ

Sent:

Tuesday, August 31,20109:02 AM


Christopher Yoo
Re: CV09-4589 Meet and Confer Re. default judgment on Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint

To:

Subject:

Mr. Y 00: Per your request, accounting of payment to Chase Home Loan as followed:
For the period of January 2008 - July 2008: Monthly payment of$I,998.08
09115/2008: Payment of$4,000.00

10114/2008: Payment of $1,998.08


11/13/2008: Payment of$I,998.08

12117/2008: Paymentof$I,998.08
Total payment over the period was: $23,980.80
Regards
Paul Nguyen

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Christopher Yoo .:cyoo@adorno.com? wrote:
I need your accounting of all payments made to Chase.

S. Christopher Yoo

Attomeyat Law

Santa Ana Offce


Adorno Yoss Alvarado & Smith

il (714)852-6800

1 MacArthur Place, Suite 200


Santa Ana, CA 92707

ai Fax: (714) 852-6899


r? cyoo()adorno.com

il Direct

(7l4) 852-6868

~:.~YY~:.Jt~lgrn.Q...(QJn

NOTICE: CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION - This email may contain


corrlidential and privileged inaterial for the sole use of the intended reeiperi(s). Any review,
use, distribuiin or diselsure by others is strictly prohibited. If you

are not the intended recipient

(or authorizcd to receive for the recipknt), please contact the sender by reply email am! delete all
copies of this mcssage.

IRS CirculUl' 230 Disclosure: '1'0 insure compliance with requirements by the fRS, we inform you that

any U.S. tax advice contained in this eommunication (including any attachments) is not intended or written

to be used, and cannot be used. for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties nnder the Internal Revenue Code

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 56 of 57 Page ID


#:1243

OF SERVICE

PROOF

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE

USA, NA.,etal.

PaulNguyen v. Chase Bank

USDC entralCase No. CV09-4589 AHM(AJWx)

4
I am einPloyed

in

the

of

County

Orange, State of

\fd~SALViAfiKt~~~iI:ii~~ca~tlitir1Yla~~:iS~rit:lri~s~lo~O

On October 5,2010, I served the foregoing document described as


DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the interested parties in this action.

by

placing the originaland/or a

true

enclosed in (a) sealed

copy thereof

envelope(s), addressed as follows:

10
SEE ATTACHED.

LIST

SERVICE

11
REGULAR

~ BY

t:

12

Tdeposited

in

such envelope

13
I am "readily

the

at 1 MacArthur

mail

mailed. with postage thereon

fully prepaid.

0
'"
..
'"
..
,.
..

MAIL:

Place, Santa Ana, California. The envelope was

en

ot

familiar" with the

practice of collection and processing

firm's

~~~~s~;f~lth6...~iclih:jY%~tifJ~6tBB~i~s~.wlt~~~w~t~'.th~t..~~....~6ti~~.6f\li~at

14

~
'"
'"

;,
0
z'"
0
'"

the age

over

California. I am

is

meter date

16

than

WAS..PRODUCED

17

D
D

date

of

in affidavit.

deposit for mailing

ON

PURCHASED..AS.RECYCLED.

PAPER

BY..

Tele-Faxed

copy of

above facsimile numbers.


OVERNIGHT

Express or Federal Express

20

California 92707. The envelope

(Federal) I declare
this Court, at whose direction the

23

Drop13oxJocatedat 1

that I amemployed.intheoffice.of a member of


service was

25

26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1087365.2

Ana,
fees thereon fully

MacArthur Place, Santa

was deposited with delivery

made.

Executed on October 5, 2010, at Santa Ana, Ca ifornia.

24

the original document

MAIL: .1depsItedschdc11eritsttheOVrriite

prepaid.

21

22

day.after

one (l)

BYFACSIMILEMACRINE: 1
to the

19

more

BY.THE.ACTOFFILINGORSERVICE,.THATTHEDOCUMENT

18

postage

party served, serviceispresumedinvalidifpostalcancellationdate or

15

the Bar of

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 57 of 57 Page ID


#:1244

SERVICE. LIST

Paul Nguyen v. Chase Bank USA,NA., et at.


USDC Central Case No. CV09-4589 AHM (AJWx)

(714) 360-7602-telephone

r~~~!1g~~~n
5

6
7
8

9
10
11
i
:

16141 Quartz Street

Plaintiffs in ProPer

Westminster, CA 92683

T. Robert Finlay Esq.


Christina Daniell e Rovira,

Esq.

Wright Finlay & Zak LLP


Court, Suite 280
Newport Beach, CA92660

4665 MacArthur

Kermit David.Marsh, Esq.


Kermit D. MarshLaw Offices
9550 Warner Avenue, Suite 250
Fountain Valley, CA92708

(949).477- 5050-telephone

(949).477-9200- facsimile

Attorney forUefendant, First


(714).593-2321 -telephone
(714) 593..2399-facsimile

Attorney forUefendant, SonCao Tran


aka

12

Loanstar Trustee Services

American

Doe

en

ot

0
0
..
'"
..
,.
..

13

14

~
'"
'"

15

0'"
~

16

;,
0
z'"

17
18

19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1087365.2