1 Homelink Catering

2 Mary Nguyen OWNER Homelink Catering

3 16641 Ross Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647
4 Email: nguyentdp@gmail.com
5 Tel: 781-600-6366
6 Attorney for Plaintiff- None
7
8
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA
11 700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE SANTA ANA, CA 92701
12 CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
13
14
15
16 HOMELINK CATERING ) Case No.30-2022-01272273-CP-PL-CJC
17 Plaintiff ) AMENDED OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
18 ) DEMURRER AND JOINDER TO ANSWER;
19 VS. ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
20 )
21 SAN YOUNG MARKET, INC. dba T &) Date: January 10, 2023
22 K FOOD MARKET ) Time: 10:30 AM
23 OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE) Dept.:C22
24 COMPANY ) Judge:
25 PRICE ZONE dba J&S) Reservation No: 73844517
26 INTERNATIONAL )
27 Defendants
28
29
30
31 Table Of Authorities
32 Cases:
33 1. Smith v. Gates Rubber Co. ………………………………………………………6
34 237 Cal.App.2d 766, 768 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)
35 2. Pacificare Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Jones, 27 …………………………………… 8
36 Cal.App.5th 391 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)
37 3. Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. ………………………………………………….8
38 Cal.App.4th 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)
39
40
41
4. Amarel v. Connell (1988) ………………………………………………………..12
42
202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 276]
43
44 5. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) ………………………………………………………..12
45 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58].)
46 6. Assurance Co. of America v. Haven……………………………………………12
47 32 Cal.App.4th 78, 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)
48
1
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 30-2022-
01272273-CP-PL-CJC
 1 7. Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) ………………………………………12
2 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.
3 8. In Blank v. Kirwan (1985) …………………………………………………12
4 39 Cal.3d 311, 318
5 9. Fundin v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. ……………………………………12
6 152 Cal.App.3d 951,955 (1984)
7 10. Dell E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. ………………………………12
8 123 Cal.App.3d 593,604 (1981)
9 11. Porten v. Univ. of San Francisco………………………………………….13
10 64 Cal.App.3d 825, 827 (1976
11
12
12. Assurance Co. of America v. Haven………………………………………….13
13 32 Cal.App.4th 78, 82 (1995)
14 13. Company v. Comerica Bank-California (1994) …………………………………13
15 24 Cal.App.4th 800, 807
16 14. Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. ……………………………13
17 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 114 (2007).
18 15. CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado………………………………………….13
19 158 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239 (2008)
20 16. Carroll v. Puritan Leasing Co. (1978) ………………………………………….13
21 77 Cal. App. 3d 481, 485
22 17. Salimi v. State Comp. Insurance Fund (1997) ……………………………………13
23
54 Cal.
24
25 18. Cantu v Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) ………………………………………….13
26 4 Cal. App.4th 857, 879-80
27 19. Carroll v. Puritan Leasing Co. (1978) ………………………………………….14
28 77 Cal. App. 3d 481, 485
29 20. Accardi v. Superior Court (1993) ………………………………………….14
30 17 Cal.App.4th 341, 346
31 21. Aragon-Haas v. Family Security Ins. Services, Inc. (1991) ………………………14
32 231 Cal.App.3d 232, 239.
33
34 Statue:
35 1. Cal. Gov. Code § 3026…………………………………………………………9
36 2. Cal. Civ. Code § 1770…………………………………………………………10
37 3. California Civil Code section 1732 ……………………………………………… 7
38
4. California Code of Civil Procedure § 452………………………………………12
39
5. CCP 430.10……………………………………………………………………….12
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
2
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 30-2022-
01272273-CP-PL-CJC
 1
2 • INTRODUCTION
3 Plaintiff Homelink Catering submits this Opposition to the Demurrer and Joinder to Demurrer of
4 Defendants. Defendants have demurred to the name of parties, cause of action and that pleading is
5 uncertain, in Plaintiff’s Complaint. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Demurrer should
6 be overruled.
7 • FACTS
8
9 1. Plaintiff is a single mother, who started a startup business of restaurant with her few
10 remaining savings. For business at Orange County Fairgrounds on February 5–6, 2022,
11 Plaintiff purchased supplies and two dual glass-top gas stove burners from
12 defendant T and K Food Market aka San Young Market, INC.
13 2. The product that was purchased from T&K Food Market was actually supplied by Price
14 Zone dba J&S International who is actually the manufacturer of the product. Product
15 name: ALPHA GLASS TOP BURNER - MODEL: 4058 TWO HEAD BURNERS.
16 3. It is also pertinent to mention here that Plaintiff used the Product Glass-Top Gas burner on
17 the same day it was bought. But after 15 min’s of heating up burner exploded unless gas
18 line was also ON, and gave unbearable loss to Plaintiff. It intact left glasses flying shattered
19 on the concrete ground and causing injury to the plaintiff employee and son. Plaintiff’s son
20 “Curtis Do” minor 16 years old at the time of the accident at the OC Fair Ground, during
21 the Lunar New Year February 5-2022.
22 4. Explosion have left the heat stain on the burner. Plaintiff got afraid of this as one burner
23 was already exploded she packed the second burner back in the box which was purchased
24 as the spare piece. Plaintiff was in traumatic distress when realized that the second gas
25 stove that was purchased from the T&K Food Market and manufactured by J&S
26 International are not reliable than the plaintiff ended up sending her employee “Shiju
27 Kurungottu” to go and retrieve and search for another working gas stove burner. Because
28 the worker was not familiar with the near by OC Fair location that employee had gone to
29 multiples stores to locate another burner and none of the store there carry any gas stove
30 burner.
31 5. Plaintiff manages to have her employee once again on February 6 -2022 to go to multiples
32 stores including Home Depot, Lowes but not limited to Walmart Supermarket it's then that
33 the plaintiff employee Shiju Kurungottu was able to retrieve two electric burners because
34 of desperate measures to ensure that the plaintiff's business doesn't take a major losses of
35 wages to the already devastated current situation. Plaintiff's business was forced to used
36 the electric stoves as an alternative...but with the plaintiff restaurant's experience the
37 electric stove wasn't strong enough for the busy event held at the OC Fair Ground. Because
38 Plaintiff wasn't able to replace the gas stoves that she had purchased from the defendants
39 to use as spares for the busy OC Fair Event the plaintiff's business ended up taking dramatic
40 and major losses in wages and still haven't been able to pay her employees.
41 6. It is mentioned to remind that Plaintiff has pleaded in the initial complaint is that during
42 this worldwide devastating pandemic. Plaintiff has both corporate and restaurant
43 management experience. Plaintiff had worked with the family through the startup of new
44 restaurants buildup business for 25 plus years with the family owning bakery warehouse
45 and owning restaurants and fast food services businesses in the retail industry. Plaintiff has
46 used the last of her funding to host the catering event at the busy OC Fair Ground during
47 the Lunar New Year February 5-6- 2022 with the expected capital returns, plaintiff has
48
3
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 30-2022-
01272273-CP-PL-CJC
 1 plans on expanding and launching her one- touch platform which included online
2 restaurants delivery services, hospitality, eCommerce selling consumer products. Plaintiff's
3 one-touch platform was expected to launch globally to creates consumers' jobs. Since the
4 incident at the OC Fair Ground, a plaintiff could not recover the financial losses of wages
5 to her startup business...which does not require anyone to fund the Startup Business
6 other then the expected capital earning at the OC Fair Ground Event on February-
7 5-6-2022.
8 7. Since the explosion from the defective product purchased from the defendants has left the
9 plaintiff financial inability to lease any restaurant locations to launch the plaintiff startup
10 platform. Plaintiff have tried since the incident at the OC Fair Ground Event to lease several
11 locations for restaurant business and all landlords and commercial brokers required 3 to 6
12 months of rental deposits which the plaintiff can't afford since the incident. The revenue
13 expected to generate from the busy OC Fair Ground during the Lunar New Year was for
14 the rental lease deposit for 3 to 6 months requirement. Proof of all business locations and
15 plans and emails between commercial brokers will be attached to show what desperate
16 measures efforts plaintiff has gone to try to negotiate deals with brokers and landlords to
17 lease business locations.
18 8. Plaintiff is raising voice on the behalf of Millions of consumers outside using faulty
19 products and bearing unbearable losses. Judge and Jury is requested to pass a Judgement
20 on merit that how J&S can be negligent in manufacturing the defective product without
21 going under quality inspection to even get approved through FDA regulation and how T&K
22 Food market can sell such faulty products risking the consumers life. Furthermore
23 Manufacturer and defendants have cowardly turned their back away when advised of their
24 lawsuit and defective products that have harmed plaintiff’s business and injured the
25 plaintiff's son and employee Curtis Do minor's at the age of 16 years.
26 9. Plaintiff is asking the judge and jurors and court staff to carefully see the consumer's and
27 citizens' hardship point of view when having to startup a business with little to no money
28 and making and in hoping to live an American Dream to support the only thing that matter
29 which is their family and kids. A the dream is just a dream, but when goals are set without
30 the need for other capital raising is now a mindset and determination of a citizens and
31 consumers that will become a reality!"
32 Plaintiff’s business plans ;
33 a) Restaurant location that allowed the plaintiff to operate 3 businesses in one
34 location and would generate a minimum of $240k per month and
35 $2,880,000 per year.
36 b) Building the plaintiff planned on putting 30 units of the hotel and a
37 restaurant, cost of purchase price is 4.6 million and the cost to construct is
38 $650k, price completed is $23 million worth and would be generating a
39 minimum of $245k per month and $2,940,000 per year and can only grow!
40 Seller was willing to finance if the plaintiff can make a rental deposit for 3
41 months.
42 Because of "Defendants and manufacture negligent and misrepresentation of warranty of
43 producing of the defective glass top, gas stove burners have caused the plaintiff business Economic
44 Damages and ware fair and platform to continues to loose financially"
45 10. (attorney Paul Orloff is in question) who have reached out to Plaintiff through emails on
46 September 8-2022 following Plaintiff's response and Paul Orloff's email responses on
47 September 12-2022. The attorney stated upon reading he and his defendants J&S
48
4
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 30-2022-
01272273-CP-PL-CJC
 1 International is not aware of the court Summon notice or know of any injury as if he didn’t
2 know that his defendant's defective product was the cause in this case. However, Plaintiff
3 has mailed the court summons notice and has received the Green Mail Receipt on August
4 22-2022 once Plaintiff was informed by ES Houseware that J&S International is the actual
5 manufacture on August 19-2022. Court summons stated plaintiff pleading of the explosion
6 from the Defective Glass Top Stove Burner was caused by Paul Orloff defendant the
7 manufacturer of J and S International. “Paul Orloff stated that there is a limit to what
8 connection his defendant’s action can be made to the Plaintiff's loss is the pretty ordinary
9 style for any attorney in defense” But Paul Orloff failed to understand the Tort Law and
10 Consumer Law are listed below. “At first Paul Orloff stated at the beginning of the email
11 “it is unclear how a stove that did not blow up or a gas tank that did not blow up caused
12 glass to cut your son.” Is an indication proven that Attorney Paul Orloff neglected to
13 acknowledge the Plaintiff have pleaded in multiples statements that Defendants and
14 Manufacture Defective Product Exploded Was the Caused to Plaintiff Business Loss of
15 Wages and Injury Plaintiff Son and Employee Curtis Do the minor’s at 16 years old at the
16 time of accident on February 5-2022. The defective product was purchased at 11:49AM
17 and 15 minutes into warming up Exploded. In Attorney Paul Orloff statement “that stove
18 and gas tank did not blow up” was a present means of waiting for casualty to make the
19 public notice is very disconcerting!” Defendants clearly have disregard the public safety
20 when manufacturing without proper testing and approval through FDA and manufacturing
21 regulation. Again attorney Paul Orloff talk about Plaintiff not having Ventilation and
22 whether this is user error in using the gas stove product is misleading...due to Plaintiff
23 first file statement that the event was held at the OC FAIR GROUND “(outdoor event)”
24 Plaintiff would like the Judge and Jurors and Court Staffs and the Public to see and envision
25 a normal houseware countertop stove laying on the countertop with normal households
26 having four to six burners on the stove in this case this defective glass top product have
27 twos burner setting on the ground with one pot and not two as this Alpha Glass top Dual
28 Gas Burners is intended for two burners for two pots! Plaintiff only USED the max knob
29 switch and gas that the Defective stove burners is intended for !” “(plaintiff only used the
30 stove for what it’s intended for)” There is nowhere in the Warranty stating any size pots is
31 required...let alone a “(Warranty that stated “This Unit Has Undergone Strict
32 Inspection and Proved Qualified before Leaving Factory, Inspector: NONE Date:
33 NONE)” Mine everyone “15 minutes” into warming when the Glass top Gas Stove
34 Exploded it left a heated stain mark on the burner where the pot was place. This stove
35 didn’t even last a day let alone 15 minutes into using. We the citizen and consumer didn’t
36 even have enough time to even use this stove! Attorney Paul Orloff, stated that its Plaintiff
37 responsible to make repair, Plaintiff would only repair if the Glass Top Gas Stove didn’t
38 exploded! Plaintiff have taken extra precaution by buying two Glass top gas stove burners
39 from defendants as spare, in which one had already Exploded so plaintiff fear of using the
40 spare purchased Gas Stove from defendants business. Plaintiff end up taken a devastating
41 losses to her business. Defendants claimed all that plaintiff stated from possibility of
42 financial gains from able to expand plaintiff business to "what if the explosion were to
43 happened and did not happen" is all a speculation on Plaintiff part is absurd ."
44 "Plaintiff would like to emphasize that the defendants and manufacture could have
45 imposed great danger and harm to the citizens and public without any consciousness or
46 remorse!!" Mind everyone, that when the glass top stove gas burners exploded the gas was
47 still on , and that plaintiff have 5 other gas tanks near the stove which plaintiff have risk
48
5
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 30-2022-
01272273-CP-PL-CJC
 1 her life while in panic to turn off the gas stove. 100s of vendors with open gas tanks running
2 near by and have 100s of gas tanks are around as spares from vendors.
3 11. (attorney Orloff is inquestion) "Speculation or not of explosion” could happen by the
4 defendants is an indication of inhumane, irresponsibility and negligent on the defendants
5 and manufacture part tor the publics and society safety have ever matter to defendants and
6 manufacture while manufacturing their defective product...which is why consumers and
7 citizens protection civil right act was implemented to insured all businesses and citizens to
8 abide by the law rules and regulation set forth the California “Products Liability” Laws."
9 Attorney Paul Orloff stated in the beginning of the email that he and his defendant J and S
10 International was not aware of this Defective product that his defendant J and S
11 International have manufacture. Paul Orloff stated that our service mail wasn’t proper when
12 plaintiff clearly used the USP service to served the defendant J and S International with
13 confirmation of green receipt along with court summons notice sent to J and S International
14 on August 19-2022 with J and S International Name on the Summons notice. Paul Orloff
15 later in the same email stated now with that in regards to “explosion or not pertaining to
16 user error to injury and son” had confirmed that he is awarded of what was pleaded in the
17 court summons notice after all.
18 12. Plaintiff is speaking on behalf of all citizens and consumers and as a citizen and the
19 consumer whom have purchased this faulty product from the defendants and manufacture
20 whom have lost the ability to grow and live the American Dream and provide to her minor’s
21 children. As a mother that experience seeing her children in such pain that was caused by
22 the defendants and Manufacture due to Negligent that could have been avoided with
23 caution if Defendants and Manufacture were to produce product with cautions and
24 undergoing proper quality testing!!" "(warranty stated This unit has undergone strict
25 inspection and proved qualified before leaving factory Inspector: NONE Date: NONE)"
26 13. Attorney Paul Orloff later stated in the end of his email that Plaintiff business loss and
27 injury to son and worker of Plaintiff Mary Nguyen is worthy of a small claim court case
28 that is worthy to settle for ridiculous amount of $500. “This statement from the Attorney
29 Paul Orloff claimed of potential life loss at the OC Fair Ground of $500 is disconcerning
30 and proven Quality Produce of Products was never the Defendants and Manufacture Top
31 Priority to ensure public safety. (Attorney Paul Orloff have filed a Notice of Joinder to
32 Demurrer on September 28-2022) Which Plaintiff did not received until October 12-2022.
33 Defendants and attorneys representatives Paul Orloff is requesting the Judge and Jurors to
34 reclassify Plaintiff case which involved an explosion of a dual glass stove burners to a
35 small claim worthy or not greater then $25,000 should be overrule under California Product
36 Liability Law for defendants and manufacture negligent of breach of contract of warranty
37 and mis warranty. California Civil Code section 1732 reads as follows: "Any affirmation of
38 fact or any promise by the seller relating to the goods is an express warranty if the natural
39 tendency of such affirmation or promise is to induce the buyer to purchase the goods,
40 and if the buyer purchases the goods relying thereon. No affirmation of the value of the
41 goods, nor any statement purporting to be a statement of the seller's opinion only shall
42 be construed as a warranty."Smith v. Gates Rubber Co., 237 Cal.App.2d 766, 768 (Cal. Ct.
43 App. 1965)
44 14. (attorney Charlie Schmitt) emailed on August 29-2022 “Defendants stated all damages
45 to plaintiff son and employee and not to plaintiff. I the plaintiff disagree and would like to
46 emphasized that my injured was from Economic Damages the major losses of my financial
47 wages that have caused damages to plaintiff health losses and ongoing mental distresses.
48
6
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 30-2022-
01272273-CP-PL-CJC
 1 So yes plaintiff is claiming the injury as a direct and indirect caused and done by the
2 defendants and manufacture. Plaintiff is requesting the judge and jurors and court staffs to
3 feel and see the consumers and citizens’ rights and hardship especially during this
4 worldwide pandemic.
5 15. Bad faith and breach of contract is what most business and manufactures have imposed
6 on consumer and citizens for decades. With most dishonorable businesses they would end
7 up filing bankruptcy before a consumers and citizens get to put a civil products liability
8 lawsuit together. As you can see example 10-4-2022 with ES Houseware defendants
9 Administrative Assistant Yuki Chen, when question of the concern or remorse of their so
10 call sold defective product to plaintiff, and whether ES Houseware is planning on working
11 with all other defendants on settling with plaintiff, at that point defendants employee hung
12 up on the plaintiff is an cleared indication of avoidance and no acknowledgement to the
13 plaintiff incident on February 5,6 2022 caused by defendants and manufacture. Mary
14 Nguyen is the plaintiff and owner of Homelink Catering and his also the employer and
15 mother of Curtis Do the 16 years old minor and the injured victim. Plaintiff is the employee
16 and son Curtis Do legal guardian. This is to answer attorney Charlie Schmitt cross
17 complaint connection. (supported facts to the initial pleading notice file on July 22,2022
18 because plaintiff had her minor’s waiting to be pickup from school and had to rush the
19 pleading).
20 16. On Monday February 7-2022 plaintiff had gone directly to the defendants place of business
21 T and K Food Market dba for San Young Market, INC where plaintiff have purchased the
22 gas stoves and supplies. Plaintiff had requested to speak with the owner or manager at
23 defendant’s business site. Plaintiff was told by the defendant’s employees that they'll have
24 the manager come down to talk to plaintiff. Plaintiff then advised of the lawsuit case and
25 dilemma...to defendant’s employees, then defendant’s employees now refused to served
26 Mary Nguyen the plaintiff of Homelink Catering and claimed, they’ll have the actual store
27 manager reach out to plaintiff.
28 17. Plaintiff first thought and concern is that the defendant’s warehouse have no manager to
29 monitor or to conduct proper federal regulation and codes with Plaintiff incident being the
30 actual live evident of legal safety concern. Now Plaintiff was given the store manager
31 number to call him. Plaintiff had call the contact defendants store manager on February 8-
32 2022 and had informed him of the exploded gas stove that was purchased at defendants
33 business location T and K Food Market aka San Young Market, INC, Manager told
34 plaintiff that defective glass top gas stove product was purchase from another manufacture
35 which is ES Houseware INC and that they’ll have their insurance company contact
36 plaintiff. A week had gone by Plaintiff received a call from Oregon Mutual Insurance
37 Company the defendants San Young Market, INC aka T and K Food Market, Oregon
38 Mutual Insurance Company claimed Adjuster Courtney Huggins stated that her insured is
39 at no fault because Oregon Mutual insured the defendant San Young Market, INC aka T
40 and K Food Market has purchased the defective product from ES Houseware Inc. Because
41 the defendants are all binded by a contract which in turns makes all defendants equally
42 liable for the cause of action accrued against Plaintiff, because plaintiff and defendants are
43 all bind by a contract with Plaintiff is a purchaser with sale receipt of purchase on February
44 -5-2022 at 11:49AM at T and K Food Market aka San Young Market, INC. As Judge
45 Upholding regulation defining "knowingly," in statute delineating unfair and
46 deceptive insurance business practices, as including constructive knowledge in
47 Pacificare Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Jones, 27 Cal.App.5th 391 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018).
48
7
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 30-2022-
01272273-CP-PL-CJC
 1 18. Plaintiff have faced emotional distress, the stressed level to plaintiff financial business and
2 injury to employee and son of Plaintiff Curtis Do minor's at 16 years old on February 5-6-
3 2022 and losses of ongoing wages and ongoing health issues and ongoing mental distresses
4 due to the defective products from the defendants and explosion out of that faulty product.
5 As stated in Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. 4 Cal.App.4th 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited
6 472 "intentional infliction of emotional distress is an injury to the person".
7 19. It is True at the initial time Plaintiff do not know how to bring this litigation against all
8 defendants which was why in the initial pleading letter plaintiff only mention business and
9 son injury and losses of wages and ongoing financial distress to plaintiff business and the
10 plaintiff self. Plaintiff declared and pleaded to defendants that their exploded defective
11 glass top gas stove dual burners product purchased by the plaintiff on February-5-2022 has
12 caused injury to Plaintiff son and worker Curtis Do age 16 and is a minor. Plaintiff's
13 pleading clearly stated the event date as to where the catering service was held and what
14 had cause the lawsuit to be summons in court for Plaintiff Mary Nguyen the owner and the
15 consumer and citizen and purchaser of the defective product sold by the defendants. Mary
16 Nguyen owner of Homelink Catering and Guardian and representative of Curtis Do
17 son(injured employee) and minor's injured in this case hold all defendants mentioned in
18 this lawsuit to settle on all listed losses to Plaintiff financial business losses, to employee
19 injured Curtis Do, son of Mary Nguyen the owner and Plaintiff for ongoing financial
20 distresses to Plaintiff business and distresses plaintiff which plaintiff have sought for
21 Psychiatric evaluation which defective glass top gas stove dual burners product exploded
22 was the ultimate set forth facts sufficient to constitutes a cause of action against defendants
23 for the fact that Defendants San Young Market, Inc. aka T and K Food Market tried to
24 deter the complaint of cause of action to their defendants which is the seller and
25 manufacture of whom San Young Market, Inc. aka T and K Food Market had purchased
26 the defective product from and had sold at defendants San Young Market, INC aka T and
27 K Food Market. Defendants are bind to their contracts and agreements outlined in the state
28 law of California which was sold and transferred to each other defendants and in turn sold
29 the binding contract of sale receipt to plaintiff. Plaintiff have reached out to ES Houseware
30 Inc. which defendant is the party that sold the defective Alpha Glass Top Burners stove to
31 San Young Market, INC, who have purchased the dual glass top gas dual stove burners
32 through J and S International. On August 18-2022 plaintiff is now informed that the
33 manufacturer is J an S International located at 6090 Triangle Dr Commerce, CA 90040.
34 Paul Orloff is the attorney for J and S International. Plaintiff have served all defendants the
35 court summons notice which have received all green receipts of acknowledgement from all
36 defendants. However ES Houseware Inc. never responded. None of ES Houseware Inc.
37 attorney or representative have ever reach out to plaintiff to settle or show any concern or
38 remorse of the defective glass top dual burners product that was sold through a third party
39 which San Young Market, Inc. aka T and K Food Market is the business location that sold
40 the defective product. Plaintiff have made several attempt to serve the defendants at
41 business location T and K Food Market. On July 29-2022 Plaintiff have gone to defendants
42 business location T and K Food Market to serve the court summons notice and security
43 guard of defendants T and K Food Market had question whether plaintiff is from the court
44 if not they refused to accept the summons court notice. Plaintiff tried to serve the summon
45 in pursuant to Cal. Gov. Code § 3026 “The service shall be made upon the defendant
46 personally”.
47
48
8
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 30-2022-
01272273-CP-PL-CJC
 1 20. Plaintiff advised the employees and security that court summons order clearly allowed
2 plaintiff to served directly to defendants business location whether by mail service or a
3 servicer and which plaintiff then sent employee Shiju Kurungottu come by on July 30-2022
4 and served the defendants and again defendants employees and security guard refused to
5 accept the court summons notice once they were informed of the litigation for the defective
6 exploded glass top gas stove product bought at defendants location T and K Food Market.
7 21. On October -4-2022 Plaintiff have once again reached out ES Houseware to informed
8 defendant that plaintiff have received the green mail receipt that they have signed and
9 acknowledge the court summons notice. However defendant ES Houseware stated that J
10 and S International Attorney Paul Orloff defendant representative will be handling and
11 represent ES Houseware, but the plaintiff have received multiples emails from J and S
12 International defendant attorney Paul Orloff and none of the his emails mention that they'll
13 re represent ES Houseware. The employee at Es Houseware defendant is confirmed as
14 Yuki Chen and title is Administrative Assistant was on the phone with plaintiff when asked
15 for more information as to whether defendant ES Houseware willing to reconcile or work
16 with defendants on the cause of injury and loss of plaintiff wages will be settle?
17 22. “Defendants attorney Paul Orloff was in question about none of the lawyers want to assist
18 Plaintiff with the mean to deter case to a small claim court by making assumption that
19 lawyer alleges that plaintiff defective product liability case is only worthy of small claim
20 case.
21 Cause of action accrued to the plaintiff by Defendants was when T&K Food Market first
22 misrepresented the product, satisfied the Plaintiff and compelled her to purchase the faulty product,
23 (Cal. Civ. Code § 1770) “Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts”. Then the
24 faulty product by Manufacturer Price Zone dba J&K International got exploded and due to that
25 explosion Plaintiff faced irreparable losses including injury to the property, Plaintiff’s Employee
26 and Plaintiff’s son who was only 16 Years old at that time. Then thirdly when Oregon Mutual
27 insurance Company called the plaintiff and said the defendants will not accept any liability claim
28 made to their defendants as they are not at fault, T&K Food Market purchased faulty product from
29 ES Houseware inc. It is prayed to the Honorable Judge, Juror to award plaintiff with Monetary
30 relief as well as to pass the Judgement against the defendants as their negligence is risking life of
31 general public and can be a reason to end someone’s life. Also it is pertinent to. Mention here that
32 plaintiff had faces emotional distress for which Psychiatric Report will be presented to court.
33 Plaintiff prays to court to award plaintiff with the monetary loss which plaintiff faced also plaintiffs
34 Medical including injuries to Plaintiff, her employee and her son along with Psychiatric Fees, loss
35 to business and property of plaintiff and which the court deems fit and proper.
36 It is the place to mention here that, I Mary Nguyen the plaintiff of Homelink Catering have
37 contacted roughly 40 plus lawyers to assist me with this consumer right affair lawsuit against the
38 defendants, yes all the lawyers agreed that the plaintiff do have a case but the only reason why
39 none willing to take my consumer rights case is because our horrific experience wasn’t big or
40 deadly enough yet. Because no one is dead yet!; (state law was implemented to prevent harm and
41 casualty)”for any lawyers to represent plaintiff to gain profits because plaintiff have no money to
42 retain the lawyers. Again a clear indication of unjustice to the citizens and consumer affair and
43 safety concerns matter. Mind everyone that the consumer and citizens’ rights act was implemented
44 to ensured public safety are to be adhere at all time!"
45 As citizens and consumers of victimization. I am urging and requesting Judge, Jurors, and
46 Courts staff to have no prejudice or bias in assisting the citizens and consumers and victims of this
47 horrific experience and losses of Homelink Catering have suffered.
48
9
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 30-2022-
01272273-CP-PL-CJC
 1 Plaintiff asks that judge and jurors and court staff to ensure no other citizens and consumers
2 will suffer the same fate as plaintiff and her employees and son had!
3 I am Mary Nguyen the plaintiff of Homelink Catering opposed to defendant’s lawyers and
4 representative of opposition to demurrer and motion to strike in an effort to dismiss lawsuit and
5 pass a judgement in favour of Plaintiff and against all defendants but rather hold all defendants
6 accountable for the matter of products liability and have impose injury, loss of wages and
7 ONGOING DISTRESS. Stressed from indirectly AND directly threatened by the defendant's
8 lawyer to strike motion because the plaintiff doesn't hold any legal credentials to be recognized
9 with legal knowledge.
10
11 • ARGUMENTS
12
13 A. Defendant’s Demurrer should be denied because Defendant’s attack on Plaintiff’s
14 Complaint is based on evidence
15 -provides in relevant part:
16 The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer
17 or answer as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following
18 grounds:
19 (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (f) The pleading is
20 uncertain. As used in this subdivision, "uncertain" includes ambiguous and unintelligible.
21 (g) In an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the
22 contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.
23 Further, CCP Section 430.30 (a) recites:
24 (a) When any ground for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer
25 (b) appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take
26 judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a demurrer to the pleading.
27 In Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant has not alleged that Plaintiff’s
28 Complaint “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action,” as required under CCP
29 430.10. Further, Defendant has also not shown that the pleading is uncertain. Rather, Defendant’s
30 demurrer is based solely on impermissible use of extrinsic evidence, an unsigned, unauthenticated
31 paper (see Defendant’s Demurrer Exhibit A). A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of
32 the complaint, not the truth or the accuracy of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to
33 prove those allegations. (Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140 [ 248 Cal.Rptr. 276].)
34 "We therefore treat as true all of the complaint's material factual allegations, including facts that
35 may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged." ( Id. at p. 141.) When a demurrer has
36 been sustained without leave to amend, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the
37 defect can be cured by amendment: if it can be, we reverse; if not, we affirm. (Blank v. Kirwan
38 (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 718, 703 P.2d 58].) Assurance Co. of America v. Haven,
39 32 Cal.App.4th 78, 82 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)
40 The Demurrer law is well settled. A demurrer is concerned solely with the sufficiency of
41 the allegations of the complaint, not with evidence or other extrinsic matters. It lies only where the
42 defects appear on the face of the pleading or may be judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§
43 430.30, 430.70.). It is therefore inappropriate for a court to rule on a demurrer by considering
44 matters not disclosed in the pleadings. Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868,
45 881.
46 In Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, the court ruled that the alleged defect must
47 be appearing on the face of the complaint or from matters that are judicially noticeable. First,
48
10
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 30-2022-
01272273-CP-PL-CJC
 1 Defendant has not made any showing of any defects on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Second,
2 Defendant has based the arguments solely on extrinsic evidence, which does not qualify to be a
3 basis for a judicial notice. See California Evidence Code Section 450, 451, 452.
4 Therefore, Defendant’s Demurrer should be denied.
5 B. Plaintiff’s Complaint includes legally sufficient factual allegations
6 Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 452, in ruling on a demurrer, all allegations
7 in the complaint "must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the
8 parties." Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 452 (emphasis added). Moreover, the Court must accept as true
9 all facts which are properly pled and must assume that the plaintiff will be able to prove all of the
10 facts alleged. Fundin v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 152 Cal.App.3d 951,955 (1984); Dell E.
11 Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co., 123 Cal.App.3d 593,604 (1981) (stating "[f]or the
12 purposes of a demurrer, all allegations pled in the complaint must be taken as true").
13 In addition, it is well established that a demurrer is limited to the challenge of alleged
14 deficiencies evident from the face of a complaint. Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 430.10; Assurance Co.
15 of America v. Haven, 32 Cal.App.4th 78, 82 (1995) (stating a demurrer challenges only the legal
16 sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth or the accuracy of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's
17 ability to prove those allegations); Porten v. Univ. of San Francisco, 64 Cal.App.3d 825, 827
18 (1976) (stating a "demurrer is to be treated as admitting the truthfulness of all properly pleaded
19 factual allegations of the complaint"). A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of factual allegations
20 in a complaint. Title Insurance Company v. Comerica Bank-California (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 800,
21 807. In ruling on a demurrer, the court may not interpret an agreement: "The hearing on demurrer
22 may not be turned into a contested evidentiary hearing through the guise of having the court
23 take judicial notice of documents whose truthfulness or proper interpretation are
24 disputable." Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp., 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 114 (2007).
25 Applying the aforesaid standards, it is evident that Defendant’s demurrer must be overruled
26 in its entirety.
27 The elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are: (1) existence of the contract;
28 (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant's breach; and (4) damages
29 to plaintiff as a result of the breach. CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado, 158 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239
30 (2008). Here, Plaintiff has adequately alleged each of the requisite elements to state a cause of
31 action for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges that:
32 Plaintiff is entitled to receive the money from Defendant.” Complaint ¶BC-4.
33 Therefore, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges all four elements of a cause of action for breach of
34 contract.
35 Further, when the allegations of a pleading establish that there is no legal theory upon which
36 liability may be imposed, the Court should sustain the demurrer. Carroll v. Puritan Leasing Co.
37 (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 481, 485. However, this is not the case here, the material facts alleged in
38 Plaintiff’s Complaint are sufficient to form a valid contract and amply give rise to a liability on
39 the part of Defendant.
40
41 In Salimi v. State Comp. Insurance Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, the court ruled that the
42 primary function of demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleadings. Further, in Cantu v
43 Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal. App.4th 857, 879-80, the court ruled that a demurrer should
44 be sustained where any essential element of a particular cause of action is lacking. Here, as
45 discussed above, Plaintiff’s Complaint set forth sufficient facts to meet the construction of a valid
46 contract, a breach by Defendant and Plaintiff’s damages. Plaintiff respectfully submits that an
47 attack on the complaint must be based on the facts within the four corners of the complaint.
48
11
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 30-2022-
01272273-CP-PL-CJC
 1 Notwithstanding the explicit allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint, by basing her Demurrer solely
2 on extrinsic evidence, Defendant has disregarded well settled laws.
3 The alleged facts in Plaintiff's Complaint amply reflect that there was a binding sale receipt
4 between plaintiff and defendants. Even if the Court finds that the alleged facts are insufficient to
5 show consideration for forming a valid contract, alleged facts with respect to equitable remedies
6 is legally sufficient, according to the Complaint.Therefore, Defendant’s Demurrer should be
7 overruled.
8 C. Plaintiff’s Complaint includes legally sufficient factual allegations
9 California Civil Code 1770, lists almost two dozen unfair and deceptive acts of consumer
10 fraud. The prohibited practices include:
11 Passing off goods or services as those of another. Misrepresenting the source of goods or
12 services.
13 Representing that used or reconditioned goods are original or new.
14 Representing that goods or services are of a particular quality or grade if they are of another.
15 Disparaging the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of
16 fact. Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised.
17 A demurrer is not concerned with the likelihood that the plaintiffs will prevail, nor even
18 whether they have evidence to support their allegations. Accardi v. Superior Court (1993) 17
19 Cal.App.4th 341, 346. If a contract set out in the complaint is ambiguous, plaintiff’s interpretation
20 must be accepted as correct in testing the sufficiency of the complaint: “A general demurrer to the
21 complaint admits not only the contents of the instrument but also any pleaded meaning to which
22 the instrument is reasonably susceptible.” Aragon-Haas v. Family Security Ins. Services, Inc.
23 (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 232, 239.
24 Evidently, Defendant’s main argument is not that there is a defect in the pleading but that
25 Plaintiff cannot prevail. However, demurrer is not the right vehicle for litigating a case on merit.
26 Further, Defendant is attempting to insert their own interpretation of the cause of injury
27 assumption and speculation and. Once again, a demurrer is not a right vehicle for Defendants to
28 provide their interpretation of what defendants deem is right for a defective product liability
29 lawsuit.
30 Hence, Defendant’s Demurrer should be overruled.
31 Consumer harm done by businesses
32 Example of Target needle case outside Target Parking Lot caused injury to a child.
33
34 THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA in the Supreme Court Carla Denise
35 Garrison and Clint Garrison, PetitionersRespondents, v. Target
36 Corporation, Respondent-Petitioner. Appellate Case No. 2020-000523
37 Ruling rights to plaintiff and had settle $$$$ in order to protect
38 consumer/citizens’ rights and safety for the negligent of the
39 defendant Target Corporation.
40
41 • CONCLUSION
42
43 Because Defendant’s Demurrer is based on extrinsic evidence and Defendant has failed to show
44 any deficiencies in the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant’s Demurrer should be
45 denied.
46
47
48
12
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 30-2022-
01272273-CP-PL-CJC
 1 Dated: January, 10, 2023
2 Plaintiff stated and confirmed
3 Opposition to Defendants and
4 Representative is True and Infact
5 Plaintiff: Homelink Catering
6 Owner: Mary Nguyen- Mary Nguyen
7
8 Attorney: None
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
13
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 30-2022-
01272273-CP-PL-CJC