Motion for Summary Judgment in HUNG VAN TRAN vs. HUAN DINH DANG et al| Trellis.Law

On September 17, 2021 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Tran, Hung Van, and Ab Golden Corporation, Llc, B Banh Mi Llc, Bistro B Catering Lp, Dang, Brian, Dang, Huan Dinh, Fresh Rolls And Go, Llc, Hd Golden Michael B Corporation, Pho Golden, Llc, for OTHER CONTRACT in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
4/25/2022 4:42 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Treva Parker-Ayodele DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-21-13968

HUNG VAN TRAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,

Vv.
192™4 JUDICIAL DISTRICT
HUAN DINH DANG, BISTRO B
CATERING LP, HD GOLDEN
MICHAEL B CORPORATION, AB
GOLDEN CORPORATION LLC, B
BANH MI LLC, PHO GOLDEN LLC,
FRESH ROLLS AND GO LLC, and
BRIAN DANG
Defendants. OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

OBJECTION, RESPONSE, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS TO DEFENDANT
BRIAN DANG’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

NOW COMES Plaintiff and files this Objection, Response, and Request for Sanctions to

Defendant BRIAN DANG’s Motion for Order to Show Cause. At the time of filing this there is

no Order on file with the Court imposed on Plaintiff. Plaintiff would show the Court as follows

that a reasonable person could believe the facts as plead against Defendant BRIAN DANG:

INTRODUCTION

1 Defendant BRIAN DANG did not attach any Order from this Court that has been imposed

on Plaintiff in its Motion for Show Cause Order nor in its Proposed Order thereto. Additionally,

there is no Order from this Court imposed against Plaintiff.

2. Defendant BRIAN DANG, seeks to circumvent Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 91a

by asking this Court to dismiss Defendant BRIAN DANG through a groundless Motion for Order

to Show Cause instead of following the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable discovery rules,

and any other available motions to the relief it is seeking.

Page | of 16
3. Defendant BRIAN DANG has also filed a Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment,

before adequate discovery has been completed. This Motion for Order to Show Cause is essentially

Defendant BRIAN DANG trying to take two bites of the same apple by attempting to be dismissed

from the lawsuit since he missed the filing deadline under Rule 91a. Defendant BRIAN DANG is

seeking in its Motion for Order to Show Cause that there is “no basis in law or fact” for claims

against him, yet Defendant BRIAN DANG doesn’t wish to follow the other standards that rule 91a

would have required, as Texas law has applied under Twombly and Iqbal Federal case law guidance

standards of plausibility, that should have been done 60 days after the first pleading filed that raised

a cause of action against Defendant BRIAN DANG on September 17, 2021.

4. Defendant BRIAN DANG now comes requesting that Plaintiff show cause as to why they

should not be held in contempt of this Court for cause of actions that were first filed against

Defendant BRIAN DANG on September 17, 2021, before the discovery process is completed, and

without any applicable Order this Court has issued on Plaintiff.

5. Plaintiff objections to the Motion for Order to Show Cause as improper and in the

alternative, files his response with request for sanctions.

BACKGROUND

6. On September 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed its Original Petition and Required Disclosures,

naming Defendant BRIAN DANG.

7. On October 25, 2021, Defendant BRIAN DANG, and all named Defendants, filed its

Original Answer and Special Exceptions.

8. On November 2, 2021, Defendant BRIAN DANG’s attorney called Plaintiffs attorney

demanding for Defendant BRIAN DANG to be dropped from the lawsuit or they would file a Rule

Page 2 of 16
91(a) motion and request for sanctions. Defendant BRIAN DANG’s attorney did not offer or was

otherwise unwilling to provide documentation or evidence in support of the request to have

Defendant BRIAN DANG dismissed. During this phone call Defendant BRIAN DANG’s attorney

repeatedly called Plaintiff a “loan shark” (which is the same language used in Defendants’ Initial

Disclosures).

9. On November 17, 2021, Defendant BRIAN DANG’s attorney called Plaintiff's attorney.

Plaintiff's attorney communicated that it would provide all known Partnership Agreements to that

date and all checks known to that date, before the deadline for Initial Disclosures are due.

10. On November 23, 2021, Plaintiff provided Defendant BRIAN DANG’s attorney with all

known Partnership Agreements and all checks known to that date. Including the amounts of money

that have been verified by Plaintiff to have been cleared up to that date. Exhibit A.

11. On November 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed its Initial Disclosures on Defendants, including all

known Partnership Agreements to that date and all checks known to that date. Exhibit B.

12. Over 100 checks were produced by Plaintiff, including a check from Defendant BRIAN

DANG, written on January 15, 2021, with Defendant BRIAN DANG’s name on the check as well

as his address, and upon information and belief this is a personal check of Defendant BRIAN

DANG. Exhibit C. The amount on Defendant BRIAN DANG?’s check is for $1,000, written to

Plaintiff, which is the same amounts of money that were written to Plaintiff around that same time

frame for other named Defendants in this lawsuit. See Exhibit B.

13. On December 2, 2021, Defendant BRIAN DANG’s attorney asked for discovery that does

not follow the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and requested Defendant BRIAN DANG be

dismissed from the lawsuit without providing any Initial Disclosures, no production, and no

evidence. Exhibit D.

Page 3 of 16
14. On March 11, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter asking for Defendants’ Initial Disclosures that

are required and severely past due. Exhibit E. To this point, Defendant BRIAN DANG had

provided no Initial Disclosures, no production, no evidence other than Defendant BRIAN DANG’s

attorney calling Plaintiff's attorney to dismiss Defendant BRIAN DANG.

15. On March 25, 2022, 121 days afier the deadline of filing Required Initial Disclosures,

Defendant BRIAN DANG, and all named Defendants, together collectively, filed their Required

Initial Disclosures. Exhibit F.

Part of Defendants’ attorney response was to call Plaintiffa “loan shark” and make

more accusations without any basis, no documentation, and no evidence:

14. Illegality. Plaintiff is a loan shark. Plaintiff is known of lending people
money at casino and other places charging interest of 10% or more. Plaintiff
has threatened Huan Dinh Dang with harm to him and to his family if he does
not give him money. Plaintiff has sent picture of Huan Dinh Dang’s family
members as threat.

Defendant BRIAN DANG, collectively with all other Defendants, refused to

provide any documents to support its claims for defenses. Plaintiff received nothing

in Defendants’ Initial Disclosure (6).

Rule 194.2(b)(6) A copy — or a description by category and location — of all
documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the
responding party has in its possession, custody, or control, and may use to
support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for
impeachment;

RESPONSE: The following are documents not generally available to the
public and/or not equally available to opposing parties:

Check images.
Bank Statements.

16. On April 19, 2022, Defendant BRIAN DANG filed his First Amended Initial Disclosures.

Again, Defendant BRIAN DANG failed to produce any production and evidence to support his

Page 4 of 16
defenses. Defendant BRIAN DANG merely offered a simple one sentence general statement to

deny Plaintiff's causes of actions. Exhibit G.

Defendant’s BRIAN DANG’s First Amended Initial Disclosure (3) response was

as follows:

Rule 194.2(b)(3) The Legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of
the responding party’s claims or defenses (the responding party need not
marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial);

RESPONSE: Brian Dang owes nothing to and is not liable to Plaintiff.

OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND OBJECTION TO THE
INADMISSABLE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY DEFENDANT IN SUPPORT OF HIS
MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendant BRIAN DANG has no basis to bring a Motion for Order to Show Cause against
Plaintiff

17. Defendant BRIAN DANG’s Motion for Order to Show Cause states:

7. A Motion for Order to Show Cause is a permissible means for to address
contempt of court by a person outside the presence of the court. Ex Parte Herring,
438 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Tex. 1969).

18. Ex Parte Herring, is a child support case for failure to make child support payments. In

that case Herring was ordered to make child support payments of $50 per week, and a contempt

hearing was later held for nonpayment of child support in violation of a court order, however notice

was not provided to Herring’s attorney.' The court held that it is a denial of due process to commit

a person to prison for contempt who is not shown to be avoiding deliberately the service of

process.” Importantly, Defendant BRIAN DANG misrepresents to this Court that using Ex Parte

Herring, as an applicable pretext to bring forth a Motion for Order to Show Cause. In Ex Parte

Herring, there was a previously issued order by the court that was subsequently violated. Here,

| Ex Parte Herring, 438 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Tex. 1969).
? Ex Parte Herring, 438 at 801 - 802.

Page 5 of 16
there is no previously issued order for Defendant BRIAN DANG to plead its motion upon, so no

Motion for Show Cause can or should be brought. Furthermore, regarding Ex Parte Herring,

Defendant BRIAN DANG cites to page 803, where a court cites a rule for Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure 308a “in suits affecting the parent-child relationship” that pertains to child support

orders and their violations, which is a rule that doesn’t apply to this lawsuit and applicable causes

of actions. Accordingly, Defendant BRIAN DANG misrepresents to this Court that it can bring its

Motion for Order to Show Cause and contempt of court (criminal) in this lawsuit based on its cited

case law in Ex Parte Herring, simply because “a Motion for Show Cause is a permissible means

to address contempt of court outside the presence of the court.”

19. Furthermore, there is no basis for a Motion for Show Cause because there is no Order from

this Court that is imposed on Plaintiff, so Plaintiff could not have violated or be alleged to have

violated any order by this Court. Therefore, there can be no such “contempt of court” by Plaintiff,

much less any criminal contempt as Defendant BRIAN DANG alleges Plaintiff to have committed.

20. Moreover, the documents attached to Defendant BRIAN DANG’s Motion for Show Cause

are not admissible. Plaintiff objects to Exhibits C and D as they are heresy under Texas Rules of

Evidence 802.

21. In the alternative, the arguments made below evidence why this this Motion for Order to

Show Cause must be denied.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT BRIAN DANG’S MOTION FOR ORDR
TO SHOW CAUSE ALLEGATIONS

22. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 states:

The signatures of attorneys or parties constitute a certificate by them that they have
read the pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of their knowledge,
information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry the instrument is not

Page 6 of 16
groundless and brought in bad faith or groundless and brought for the purpose of
harassment. Attorneys or parties who shall bring a fictitious suit as an experiment
to get an opinion of the court, or who shall file any fictitious pleading in a cause for
such a purpose, or shall make statements in pleading which they know to be
groundless and false, for the purpose of securing a delay of the trial of the cause,
shall be held guilty of a contempt. If a pleading, motion or other paper is signed in
violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, after notice
and hearing, shall impose an appropriate sanction available under Rule 215-2b,
upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both.

Courts shall presume that pleadings, motions, and other papers are filed in good
faith. No sanctions under this rule may be imposed except for good cause, the
particulars of which must be stated in the sanction order. "Groundless" for purposes
of this rule means no basis in law or fact and not warranted by good faith argument
for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. A general denial does
not constitute a violation of this rule. The amount requested for damages does not
constitute a violation of this rule.

23. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 10 states:

(1) the pleading or motion is not being presented for any improper purpose,
including to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of
litigation;

(2) each claim, defense, or other legal contention in the pleading or motion is
warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension,
modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

(3) each allegation or other factual contention in the pleading or motion has
evidentiary support or, for a specifically identified allegation or factual contention,
is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
investigation or discovery; and

(4) each denial in the pleading or motion of a factual contention is warranted on
the evidence or, for a specifically identified denial, is reasonably based on a lack of
information or belief.

Page 7 of 16
A. DEFENDANT BRIAN DANG’s refence in Plaintiff's lawsuit and DEFENDANT
BRIAN DANG?’s involvement in the financials of BISTRO B

24. Defendant BRIAN DANG was sued with multiple other Defendants in this lawsuit

involving loans and money improperly received where said Defendants benefited by Plaintiff's

money.

25. As stated in Plaintiff's First Amended Original Petition, the B Banh Café Partnership

Agreement was made in October 10, 2017 and the BISTRO B Partnership Agreements were

entered into January 25, 2018, June 21, 2018, and December 2, 2018.

26. Plaintiff produced the check written by Defendant BRIAN DANG on January 15, 2021,

with Defendant BRIAN DANG’s name and address on the check to Plaintiff for $1,000. Exhibit

27. Plaintiff has previously produced other checks from other named Defendants to this lawsuit

who also wrote checks to Plaintiff around the same time in 2021 for $1,000. See Exhibit B.

As stated in Plaintiff's First Amended Original Petition:

Plaintiff has received capricious, severely insufficient, and untimely loan
repayment amounts from all named Defendants. Including checks with bank
accounts containing insufficient funds on numerous occasions.

Without any justification, all named Defendants, have failed to pay back the loans
and/or money that they improperly received and benefited from Plaintiff.

28. Defendant BRIAN DANG is involved more in BRIRO B than he represents to this Court.

According to Defendant BRIAN DANG he has worked at BRISTRO B since November 2018 as

“secretary”. In over three (3) years working there Defendant BRIAN DANG claims to have:

1) sort and file the purchase receipts of the business;
2) provide a monthly report of the business’s total expenses;
3) asserting the business in their everyday finances; and
4) doing runs and food deliveries

Page 8 of 16
See Exhibit H.

29. Plaintiff has served Defendant BRIAN DANG written discovery in this case of

interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission in order to obtain more

information. Exhibit I.

30. Defendant BRIAN DANG’s bases for being brought into this lawsuit is his payment of the

check to Plaintiff with his name and address on the check, and for an amount of $1,000 when

collectively viewed the other checks from co-Defendants for the exact same and similar amount

of money Plaintiff is making claims for.

31. Additionally, Defendant BRIAN DANG stated in Exhibit C in his Motion for Order to

Show Cause that his father “used” his chase bank account without his knowledge. Defendant

HUAN DANG stated in Exhibit D in his Motion for Order to Show Cause that he “gave” Plaintiff

check that has Defendant BRIAN DANG’s name on it. Importantly, Defendant BRIAN DANG

does not dispute his name is on the check, his signature to the check, nor does he dispute he wrote

the check himself. Similarly, Defendant HUAN DANG only claims to have ‘gave’ Plaintiff a

check, but does not argue that Defendant BRIAN DANG did not write it himself.

32. Moreover, Defendant BRIAN DANG does not specifically dispute any of the elements for

the causes of action he is sued under in its Motion for Oder to Show Cause. In fact, Defendant

BRIAN DANG fails to mention any of the causes of action he is being sued for and how or why

those specific causes of action allegations are not true together with the reasonable inferences that

can be drawn from them can show how no reasonable person could believe the facts pleaded.

Defendant BRIAN DANG makes nothing more than mere out of court statements in an attempt to

offer for proof the truth of the matter asserted in his affidavit, and wishes that the court take it as

true for a basis of dismissal from this lawsuit.

Page 9 of 16
33. Furthermore, regarding Defendant BRIAN DANG’s age, the argument he presents is that

because the first Partnership Agreement was made between Plaintiff and Defendant around

October 2017 then Defendant BRIAN DANG could not be involved in receiving money because

he was 16 at that time, is wholly devoid of ignoring the date of the check was written and the

totality of facts and circumstances of the case. Defendant BRIAN DANG’s check with Defendant

BRIAN DANG’s name on it was on January 15, 2021, that was made for $1,000, which is the

same amount of money other co-Defendants were attempting/paid Plaintiff for loans or improperly

received money. Defendant BRIAN DANG by his own account would be 18 years of age by

September 6, 2019, when the check was written from his bank account. Additionally, Defendant

BRIAN DANG was working for BISTRO B by November 2018 as a secretary handling the

financial accounting of BISTRO B.

34. Taken a whole, Plaintiff made reference, basis, and has presented causes of action for

brining suit against Defendant BRIAN DANG when taken as true together with the reasonable

inferences that can be drawn from them that a reasonable person could believe the facts. Defendant

BRIAN DANG is essentially improperly seeking for Plaintiff to marshal all of its evidence against

Defendant BRIAN DANG when adequate discovery is not completed.

B. Defendant BRIAN DANG seeks criminal contempt of court that violates Texas Law
in its effort to bully Plaintiff

35. Contempt is either civil (remedial in nature) or criminal (punitive in nature). "Contempt of

court is broadly defined as disobedience to or disrespect of a court by acting in opposition to its

authority."> The "essence" of contempt requires conduct that "obstructs or tends to obstruct the

proper administration of justice."*

5 Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex. 1995).
4 In re Bell, 894 S.W.2d 119, 127 (Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev. 1995).

Page 10 of 16
36. A criminal contempt order punishes a party for disobedience of a court order.* (emphasis

added). Further, criminal contempt is unconditional and punitive in nature and requires proof

beyond a reasonable doubt.® A finding of contempt for disobedience of a court order requires proof

of: (1) a reasonably specific order; (2) a violation of the order; and (3) the willful intent to violate

the order.”

37. A criminal contempt order must specify the punishment and failure to do so is an

unacceptable denial of due process.* Additionally, the contempt order cannot punish the contemnor

in excess of that requested in the petition seeking contempt.’

38. The maximum punishment that a district court can assess under its criminal contempt

power is a fine of not more than $500, or confinement in the county jail for not more than six

months, or both.!°

39. In Defendant BRIAN DANG’s Motion for Show Cause Section “IV. Criminal Contempt

of Court” Defendant seeks Plaintiff be confined for “no less than 72 hours to no more than 96

consecutive hours and assess a $5,000 fine as well as sanctions.”

40. Here, there was no Order by this Court imposed on Plaintiff. Therefore, Plaintiff could not

be held in criminal contempt for disobedience of a court order in this lawsuit.

41. Further, the maximum fine permitted by law is $500.00, yet Defendant seeks a $5,000 fine.

Defendant BRIAN DANG is requesting for a fine $4,500 more than is permitted by law. This tactic

to seek monetary compensation over the lawful limit is a blatant bully approach used by Defendant

BRIAN DANG, without any consideration of the applicable law in Texas.

5 Galtex Prop. Investors, Inc. v. City of Galveston, 113 S.W.3d 922, 927 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no
pet.).
° See Chambers, 898 S.W.2d at 259.
7 In re Guerra, 235 8.W.3d 392, 433 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2007, orig. proceeding).
8 See Ex Parte Mitchell, 783 S.W.2d 703 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1999, orig. proceeding).
° See Ex Parte Jackman, 663 S.W.2d 520 (Tex.App.—Dallas, 1983, orig. proceeding).
10 Tex. Gov’T. CODE § 21.002(b).

Page 11 of 16
C. Plaintiff's Request for Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions for Defendants violating
TCPRC 10.001 and TRCP Rule 13

42. Section 10.001 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code and Rule 13 of the Texas

Rules of Civil Procedure both prohibit a party from falsifying information in a motion, harass or

cause unnecessary delay, or increase the costs of litigation.

43. Section 10.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code in pertinent part states that:

The signing of a pleading or motion as required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure
constitutes a certificate by the signatory that to the signatory's best knowledge, information,
and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry: (1) the pleading or motion is not being
presented for any improper purpose, including to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or
needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(emphasis added)

44. Similarly, Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure states in pertinent part as

follows:

The signatures of . . . parties constitute a certificate by them that they have read the
pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief
formed after reasonable inquiry the instrument is not groundless and brought in bad faith
or groundless and brought for the purpose of harassment. . . . [P]arties who shall bring a
fictitious suit as an experiment to get an opinion of the court, or who shall file any fictitious
pleading in a cause for such a purpose, or shall make statements in pleading which they
know to be groundless and false, for the purpose of securing a delay of the trial of the
cause, shall be held guilty of a contempt. If a pleading, motion or other paper is signed in
violation of this rule, the court, upon motion or upon its own initiative, after notice and
hearing, shall impose an appropriate sanction available under Rule 215-2b, upon the person
who signed it, a represented party, or both.

Courts shall presume that pleadings, motions, and other papers are filed in good faith. No
sanctions under this rule may be imposed except for good cause, the particulars of which
must be stated in the sanction order. "Groundless" for purposes of this rule means no basis
in law or fact and not warranted by good faith argument for the extension, modification,
or reversal of existing law. A general denial does not constitute a violation of this rule. The
amount requested for damages does not constitute a violation of this rule.
(emphasis added)

45. Defendant BRIAN DANG for the first time in this case has made available to Plaintiff, in

its Motion for Show Cause, Exhibit C consisting of BRIAN DANG’s affidavit and bank statement,

Page 12 of 16
as well as Exhibit D the affidavit of Defendant HUAN DANG. Contained in the Affidavits upon

which the Motion for Show Cause is based on, lies several misrepresentations to this Court.

46. Exhibit C Defendant BRIAN DANG sworn affidavit statement states:

9. I have never given money from or received money from HUNG VAN TRAN.

11. | am not involved in any business associated with HUNG VAN TRAN.

13. I have never acted as my father’s agent or anyone’s agent to do business with
or interest with HUNG VAN TRAN in any way. For my father, I do recall going
along with my older brother, while he would pick up flour, napkins, and like frozen
eggrolls, and take them from one restaurant to another.

47. Defendant BRIAN DANG gave money to Plaintiff on or about January 15, 2021 in form

of a check, under his name, in order to pay off the loans and/or money that belongs to Plaintiff.

Exhibit C. The amount of money on that check under Defendant BRIAN DANG’s name is the

exact same amount, $1,000, as the other checks written around the same time by the other named

Defendants to this lawsuit. See Exhibit B. To date, this is the only check Plaintiff is aware of from

Defendant BRIAN DANG, and Defendant BRIAN DANG has been asked to produce other checks,

if any along with other discovery requests. See Exhibit I.

48. Defendant BRIAN DANG is involved in the businesses which Plaintiff sues upon. To the

extent of Plaintiff's knowledge and upon information and belief, Defendant BRIAN DANG

worked and/or is currently employed at the business BISTRO B and handles the financials and

accounting for BISTRO B from November 2018 — present as stated in Defendant BRIAN DANG’s

social media account. Exhibit H.

49, Exhibit D Defendant HUAN DANG sworn statement states:

3. Brian Dang was 16 years old in October 2017, which is the time-period that
Mr. Tran claims that events made the basis to this lawsuit occurred.

Page 13 of 16
50. Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and First Amended Original Petition have claims against all

named Defendants that have occurred well beyond October 2017. The Partnership Agreements

making the basis of this lawsuit are entered into well beyond October 2017 and more importantly

the checks in question. Further, Defendant BRIAN DANG’s check was written on January 15,

2021, Exhibit C, and according to Defendants, Defendant BRIAN DANG turned 18 years old

September 6, 2019.

51. Defendants new and surprising information in Exhibits C and D in their Motion for Order

to Show Cause was an action to purposefully withheld documentation regarding Defendant

BRIAN DANG to paint Plaintiff as a liar. The filing of Defendants’ Motion is nothing more but

an attempt to harass Plaintiff and increase the costs of litigation. Additionally, the affidavits

contained in Exhibits C and D to their Motion for Order to Show Cause completely misrepresents

the facts of this case as they have occurred.

52. Defendant BRIAN DANG’s counsels have misrepresented the pretext to bring forth this

Motion for Show Cause by citing their basis in Ex Parte Herring, 438 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Tex.

1969), a child support case, and by asking for this court to impose a fine that is not permissible by

law in violation of TEX. GOV’T. CODE § 21.002(b). In effect, this Defendants Motion for Order to

Show Cause is “groundless” because the pleading is brought in bad faith, for the purpose of

harassment, contains statements that are false, and has no basis in law.

53. Based on Defendants’ Motion for Show Cause Order, and the multiple false representations

Defendants have made to this Court, Plaintiff requests this Court to sanction Defendants and

request for attorney’s fees. And find Defendants in violation of Section 10.001 of the Texas Civil

Practice and Remedies Code as well as Rule 13 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Page 14 of 16
54. Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions of no less than $2,000.00 against Defendants’

counsels.

55. Plaintiff requests attorney’s fees of no less than $2,887.50 for having to defend against this

motion brought in bad faith and attached Plaintiff counsels’ affidavit for time spent as Exhibit J.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays as follows:

This Court deny Defendant’s Motion for Show Cause;

This Court deny Defendant’s Motion Request for Criminal Contempt and Sanctions;

This Court assess monetary sanctions against Defendant’s counsel of no less than $2,000 and for
$2,700.00 in attorneys’ fees for Plaintiff.

That the Plaintiff be granted all other relief that they are justly entitled to.

Respectfully submitted,

CAO & ASSOCIATES, PC
By: /s/ Michael H. Cao
Michael H. Cao
Texas Bar No. 24012379
mcao@caoatlaw.com
Omar R. Gutierrez
Texas Bar No. 24101076
omar@caoatlaw.com
3212 N. Jupiter Rd., Ste. 128
Garland, Texas 75044
Telephone: (214) 703-0903
Telecopier: (469) 519-8812
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
HUNG VAN TRAN

Page 15 of 16
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
On April 25, 2022 a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon
opposing counsels of record in accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Law Offices of William Chu
William Chu
Texas State Bar No. 04241000
4455 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1008
Dallas, Texas 75244
Tel. (972) 403-7400
Fax. (972) 403-1100
Email: wmchulaw@aol.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
HUAN DINH DANG, BISTRO B CATERING LP,
HD GOLDEN MICHAEL B CORPORATION,
AB GOLDEN CORPORATION LLC, B BANH MI LLC,
PHO GOLDEN LLC, FRESH ROLLS AND GO LLC,
and BRIAN DANG

/s/ Omar R. Gutierrez.
Omar R. Gutierrez

Page 16 of 16
CAUSE NO. DC-21-13968

HUNG VAN TRAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT BRIAN DANG’S
MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

ON THIS DAY, the Court considered Defendant BRIAN DANG’s Motion For Order To

Show Cause. After considering the motion, response, and after a hearing on the motion and

considering the arguments of counsel, the Court finds that said Motion and Criminal Sanctions

should be DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff should be awarded the amount of $

for sanctions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff should be awarded the amount of $

for Plaintiff's attorney fees as reasonable.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff the sums of

$ and $ for such sanctions and reasonable attorney's fees on

or before.

[SIGNATURE LINE ON NEXT PAGE]

Page 1 of 2
SIGNED on

JUDGE PRESIDING

Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT A
Print | Close Window

Subject: Re: Hung Van Tran v. Huan Dinh Dang et al DC-21-13968
From WILLIAM CHU
Date: Wed, Nov 24, 2021 2:46 pm
To: omar@caoatlaw.com
Ce: mcao@caoatlaw.com, William Knisley

Omar,

do you have any documents evidencing a loan with payment schedules as you had described in your lawsuit or
petition?

William Chu
| Law Offices of William Chu.
| 4455 LBJ Freeway Suite 100
Dallas , Texas 75244
Fax - 972 392-9889
Phone 172. 392-9889
Cell - 214 263-9988

On Nov 23, 2021, at 9:09 AM, omar@caoatlaw.com wrote:

Dear William,

According to our telephonic discussions, below is a link to the google drive with the
known (1) agreements and (2) checks, at this point in discovery. To date, we calculate
that the total amount that has been able to clear at the financial institutions and has
been received by my client in check form of payment is $70,675.00.

Please let me know if you have trouble accessing the google drive link.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1qQDKzGehDSXoWMKemM4pzjujvPAIQXUR?usp
=sharing

With respect,
Omar R, Gutierrez
Attorney
Cao & Associates, P.C.
Dallas | Houston | Saigon

HUNG VAN TRAN IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,

HUAN DINH DANG, BISTRO B
CATERING LP, HD GOLDEN
MICHAEL B CORPORATION, AB 192nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT
GOLDEN CORPORATION LLC, B
BANH MI LLC, PHO GOLDEN LLC,
FRESH ROLLS AND GO LLC, and
BRIAN DANG
Defendants. OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S REQUIRED INITIAL DISCLOSURES TO DEFENDANTS

TO. DEFENDANTS HUAN DINH DANG, BISTRO B CATERING LP, HD GOLDEN
MICHAEL B CORPORATION, AB GOLDEN CORPORATION LLC, B BANH MI
LLC, PHO GOLDEN LLC, FRESH ROLLS AND GO LLC, and BRIAN DANG, attorney
of record, William Chu, The Law Offices Of William Chu, 4455 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1008,
Dallas, Texas 75244, phone (972) 392-9888, fax (972) 392-9889, email
wmchulaw@aol.com.

Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 194.2, Plaintiff HUNG VAN TRAN hereby

serves their Responses to Defendants HUAN DINH DANG, BISTRO B CATERING LP,

HD GOLDEN MICHAEL B CORPORATION, AB GOLDEN CORPORATION LLC, B

BANH MI LLC, PHO GOLDEN LLC, FRESH ROLLS AND GO LLC, and BRIAN

DANG’s Required Disclosures.

Salad
Respectfully submitted,

Michael H. Cao
TX Bar No.: 24012379

PLAINTIFF'S REQUIRED INITIAL DISCLOSURES TO DEFENDANTS Lof il
Email: mcao@caoatlaw.com
Omar R. Gutierrez,
TX Bar No.: 24101076
Email: omar@caoatlaw.com
CAO & Associates, P.C.
3212 N. Jupiter Rd, Ste. 128
GARLAND, TX 75044
Tel: (214) 703-0903
Fax: (469) 519-8812
Attorneys for Plaintiff
HUNG VAN TRAN

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On November 24, 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served
upon opposing counsels of record in accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure.

/s/ Omar R. Gutierrez
Omar R. Gutierrez

PLAINTIFF'S REQUIRED INITIAL DISCLOSURES TO DEFENDANTS 2ofll
RULE 194 INITIAL DISCLOSURES TO DEFENDANTS

(1) the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit;

RESPONSE:

Plaintiff: HUNG VAN TRAN
Defendants: HUAN DINH DANG, BISTRO B CATERING LP,
HD GOLDEN MICHAEL B CORPORATION,
AB GOLDEN CORPORATION LLC, B BANH MI LLC,
PHO GOLDEN LLC, FRESH ROLLS AND GO LLC,
and BRIAN DANG

(2) the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;

RESPONSE:

None that Plaintiffis aware of at this time.

(3) the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the responding party's claims or
defenses (the responding party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial);

RESPONSE:

Factual Basis:

Approximately two weeks before October 10, 2017, Defendant HDD invited
Plaintiff to BISTRO B’s place of business, and asked Plaintiff for money so
HDD could use it in his bakery and coffee businesses ventures of B BANH and
BISTRO B. Specifically, HDD expressed to Plaintiff that he wanted outside
capital to further fund B BANH and BISTRO B. Also, HDD told Plaintiff that
he needed to obtain funding for the bakery and coffee businesses quickly
because B BANH and BISTRO B were not doing well financially.
On or about October 10, 2017, Plaintiff entered into an initial loan agreement
with HDD. To induce Plaintiff to loan the money for B BANH, HDD promised
he would pay back Plaintiff in full according to payment schedules in the loan
agreement. In addition to the promise to repay the loan, HDD also promised
Plaintiff that he would receive ten percent (10%) ownership of the bakery and
coffee venture B BANH. Plaintiff initially agreed to loan HDD one hundred
thousand dollars ($100,000) to fund B BANH that HDD asked for.
Subsequent to the initial loan agreement, Defendants needed more funding
and Plaintiff agreed to loan HDD more money to fund BISTRO B over a series
of three additional loan agreements that correspond to three additional loans.
To induce Plaintiffto loan the money for BISTRO B, HDD promised he would
pay back Plaintiff in full according to payment schedules in the series of three

PLAINTIFF'S REQUIRED INITIAL DISCLOSURES TO DEFENDANTS 3of ll
additional loan agreements. In addition to the promise to repay the loans, HDD
also promised Plaintiff that he would receive up to fifty percent (50%)
ownership of the bakery and coffee venture BISTRO B. Plaintiff agreed to
loan HDD a total of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) to fund
BISTRO B that HDD asked for.
Plaintiff loaned HDD, cumulatively, a total of five hundred thousand dollars
($500,000) for HDD’s business ventures B BANH and BISTRO B.
Plaintiff loaned the money to HDD starting on October 10, 2017 to
approximately October 2019.
HDD individually, and as the Registered Agent and owner of the legal entities
that make up the Defendants, and all named Defendants collectively, at some
point in time paid or attempted to pay Plaintiff for loans made to fund B
BANH and BISTRO B.
HDD, B BANH, and BISTRO B never transferred any ownership interest of
B BANH nor BISTRO B to Plaintiff.
On multiple occasions since B BANH and BISTRO B received all loans from
Plaintiff, HDD represented he would pay Plaintiff back for that money used to
fund B BANH and BISTRO B. As the date of this Petition, Plaintiff has
received capricious, severely insufficient, and untimely loan repayment
amounts from all named Defendants.
Without any justification, all named Defendants, have failed to pay back the
loans they received from Plaintiff.

Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference.

Plaintiff entered into a valid, enforceable contracts with Defendants HDD,
BISTRO B, and B BANH. Plaintiff tendered performance on their contractual
obligations. Defendants’ above-described conduct constitutes a breach of the
contracts made with Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendants breached the contract
by, among other things, failing to repay the full amount of the loans to Plaintiff
by the required schedule specified in the loan agreements, failing to issue
Plaintiff its share in the business ventures, and, as a result of Defendants’
breaches, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages, which
Plaintiff seeks to recover. Plaintiffs’ damages include, but are not limited to,
accrual damages, accumulated interest on Plaintiffs’ lines of credit, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and reasonable and necessary
attorney’s fees.

PLAINTIFF'S REQUIRED INITIAL DISCLOSURES TO DEFENDANTS 4ofil
Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference.

In the alternative, Plaintiff provided a valuable service to Defendants HDD,
BISTRO B, and B BANH by loaning them cumulative total of five hundred
thousand dollars ($500,000). The service was provided for the Defendants, so
they could open up B BANH and BISTRO B. Defendants accepted the service,
by using Plaintiff’s money and credit. Defendants had reasonable notice that
Plaintiff expected compensation for the service provided, namely repayment
of the loan in full by the required schedule specified in the loan agreements,
and ownership interest in B BANH and BISTRO B. Defendants have not
repaid the loan amounts to Plaintiff, and have not issued Plaintiff his
ownership interest share in B BANH and BISTRO B. Plaintiffs’ damages
include, but are not limited to, accrual damages, accumulated interest on
Plaintiffs’ lines of credit, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference.

Defendants HDD, BISTRO B, and B BANH made representations to the
Plaintiff. These representations were material and false. At the time
Defendants made there representations, Defendants either knew the
representations were false, or made the representations recklessly, as positive
assertions, and without knowledge of their truth. Defendants made these

Case Info

Judge

ACEVES, MARIA Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

May 13, 2022

Case Filing Date

September 17, 2021

County

Parties

AB GOLDEN CORPORATION, LLC Defendant
B BANH MI LLC Defendant
BISTRO B CATERING LP Defendant
CAO, MICHAEL H Attorney for the Plaintiff
CHU, WILLIAM Attorney for the Defendant
DANG, BRIAN Defendant
DANG, HUAN DINH Defendant
FRESH ROLLS AND GO, LLC Defendant
HD GOLDEN MICHAEL B CORPORATION Defendant
NGUYEN, JUDY HONG Attorney for the Plaintiff
PHO GOLDEN, LLC Defendant
TRAN, HUNG VAN Plaintiff
Omar Gutierrez Attorneys for Plaintiffs

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: HUNG VAN TRAN vs. HUAN DINH DANG et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties