Preview
Phuong T. Nguyen By Fax
P.O. Box 585
Brisbane, CA 94005 ELECTRONICALLY
(650)228-6880 FILED
Plaintiff, pro se Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
05/18/2023
Clerk of the Court
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA BY: ERNALYN BURA
Deputy Clerk
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — Civil Unlimited Jurisdiction
PHUONG T. NGUYEN, Case Nox CGC-21-591803
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF PHUONG T. NGUYEN'S
10 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
vs. RYAN JAMES PATTERSON'S
1.1
MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF
LONDON BREED; ATTORNEY FFES AND COSTS
MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO;
FOR PREVAILINC ON A SPECIAI.
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO;
PG Jt E Corporation: Pacific Gas MOTION TO STRIKE; MEMORANDUM OF
and Electric Company, a Corporation; POINTS ANIJ AUTHORITIES IN
RECOLOCIY EAST BAY, a OPPOSITION; AND DECLARATION
Corporation; Ol" PHl JONCi ',I.', NGUYEN
Recology Sunset Scavenger, a "Telephone Appearance"
business
form unknown; SAN FRANCISCO
17 I"UBLIC
UTITLITIES COMMISSION; PAUL
18 M. MIYAMOTO aka San Francisco Date: June 1, ZOZ3
County Sheriff; Zamcer Riaz Azam; Time: 9:30AM
Abdul Azam; Jason Paul Voelkcr; Dept, 501
20 Juan S. Ruiz aka Juan Salvador Ruiz;
SHARAD JAIN; CRASHPAD LLC; Judge: Hon. Charles Haines
CRASHPADZ INC; EXCALIBUR Estimated Time required: 15 minutes
21
TRADING LLC; SF CRASHPAD
22 LLC; SF CRASHPADZ LLC; SFC Trial Date: Not yet set
CRASHPAD LLC; SFO CRASHPAD
23 LLC; DC CRASHPAD, LLC;
COREY A. TEAGUE;
RYAN JAMES PATTERSON;
25 JENNIFER EUNJIN CHOI;
TINA T. TAM;WILLIAM J.
26 COAKER;
MICHAEL J. BOROVINA JR.; and
27 DOES 1 through 100,
28 Defendants
t
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
5 Comes Plaintiff Phuong T. Nguyen, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff in
opposition to Defendant Ryan James Patterson's Motion for An Award of Attorney
Fees and Costs for Prevailing on a Special Motion to Strike against Plaintiff s
First Amended Complaint, and in opposition states, alleges, and argues as follows:
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AIJTHORITIES
IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'OTION
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
12
WHO WAS REALLY THF. PREVAII.ING PARTY
13
ON THE ANTI-SLAPP AS TO THE FIRST TO FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION?
l4
Defendant Ryan Patterson was not the true prevailing party as to his Special Motion to Strike
as to the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action, because Plaintiff Phuong Nguyen
16
did not name Defendant Ryan Patterson as a target as to the First — Fourth Causes of Action.
18 within Plaintiff" Nguyen's First Amended Complaint. The Order erantrng the entire Anti-bi~a
was therefore obtained bv extrinsic fraud.
20
Therefore, any award of Attorney Fees and Costs would be offset as to the loss in the
21
First — Fourth Causes of Action.
22
23
In fact, as to the issue of Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorney attempting to dupe the
24 court into asking for an Award ofAttorney Fees for their work on Drafting a Special Motion
to Strike as to the First — Fourth Causes ofAction, Defendant Rvan Patterson and his attornev
26
should be SANCTIONED for Bad Faith Tactics and attemntinv to defraud the court and Plaintiff
27
as to th'eir false claim that thev suffered Leual Work losses for Working on a Special Motion
28
2
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'S NOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
to Strike as to the First -Fourth Causes of Action which Plaintiff did NOT even sue Defendant
Ryan Patterson within.
3
The court has discretion to fix the Court Order granting the Anti-Slapp as to Equitable Relief
based on the showing of the extrinsic fraud committed bv Defendant Evan Patterson and his counsel.
5
THE DEFENDANT RYAN PATTERSON SOUGHT THE SAME RELIEF
FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES WITHIN THE SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE WHICH WAS ALREADY DENIED.
See California Code of Civil Procedure $ 1008[B]
8
Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorney of record already sought an award of attorney fees
9
Ip within their filed Special Motion to Strike [Anti-Slapp], in which the Attoniey Fee Request
was already denied upon the court's issuance of the Order on the Granting of the Defendant's
12
Special Motion to Strike.
13
The court cannot change the prior order issued, imless a Motion for Reconsideration was
j s
filed anil was granted.
15
The circumstances here show that the court heard oral arguments on Defendant Ryan Patterson's
17 Special Motion to Strike on the date of 04/14/2023.
The Court issued its order on Defendant Ryan Patterson's Special Motion to Strike
on the date of 04/Ig/2023 which was filed on 04/20/2023,
2P
On the date of 05/03/2023 Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorneys of record
21
filed a Motion for An Award of Attorney Fees and Costs which was 13 Davs after the
23 Order arantina the Defendants* Anti-Slann Motion was filed in the court.
Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorney are unhappy with the court's Order issued
25
from April 18, 2023.
26
They cannot change the existing Court Order of Granted Anti-Slapp with Denied Award
27
of Attorney Fees by filing a Motion for An Award of Attorney Fees, because their
3
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
1
Motion for Attorney Fees is an attempt to change the court's existing Order that was issued
2
on April 18, 2023 and Bled on April 20, 2023.
Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorneys of Record should not be granted an award of
Attorney Fees based on the following rule issues:
RULE ¹I: CCP 5 10081 Bl reauires that when a nartv seeks the same relief that was nreviouslv
7
denied that thev must nrovide a declaration referencinu that the same relief was souuht
nreviouslv, that the relief was denied. and exnlain the new circumstances.
9
Whereas the Defendant Patterson souaht attorney fees within his Anti-Slapn Motion which
was heard on Anril 14, 2023. but was denied as to the Attomev Fees request.
12
Yet. he has not nrovidcd a declaration, nor has he tiled a Moton for reconsideration.
13
RlJI,E ¹2: CCP 5 10081A1 reauires that a Motion for Reconsideration be filed within 10
14
davs of the entered order at issue,Yet Detbndant Patterson has not tiled a Motion for
Recons1d erat ton.
17 ll. DEFFNDANI'S FAII,URE IN FOLLOWlNG CCP 55 1008 IA1 k 10081~B
IS SANCTIONABLE PER CAI.IFORNIA RULFS OF COURT. RULE 2.30lbl.
CRC 2.30 (b) re. Sanctions
20 In addition to any other sanctions permitted by law, the court may order a person, after written notice
and an opportunity to be heard, to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the court or an aggrieved
22
person, or both, for failure without good cause to comply with the applicable rules. For the purposes
23
of this rule, "person" means a party, a party's attorney, a witness, and an insurer or any other
24
individual or entity whose consent is necessary for the disposition of the case. If a failure to comply
26 with an applicable rule is the responsibility of counsel and not of the party, any penalty must be
imposed on counsel and must not adversely affect the party's cause of action or defense thereto.
28
4
PLAINTIFF'8 OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'8 NOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
Here, in this case Defendant committed extrinsic fraud by filing an Anti-Slapp on all causes of
action, when Plaintiff only sued him on the 5s'o 14'" Causes of Action.
3
The court erred by granting the Anti-slapp as to all Causes of Action, because Defendant
Patterson was not sued within the First to Fourth Caused of Action with Plaintiff's First
5
Amended Complaint.
Now, after Defendant was successful in duping the court into believing that he was a target
of the First To Fourth Causes of Action, he has the nerve to ask for an Award of Attorney
Fees to celebrate the extrinsic fraud and collusion he and his attorney has engaged in.
10
The court owes a duty to Plaintiff to Equitably correct the issues.
11
III. DEFENI)ANTS ARE". ATTEMPTING TO MISLE"AD Tl-IE COURT
AS TO 'I'RUTII AND RELE!VANCE OF THEIR EXIIIE3ITS.
13
/I ules of Professional Conduct Rule 5-200 Trial Conduct
hi presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member:
(A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only
16
as are consistent with truth;
17
(I3) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of
fact or law;
(C) Shall not intentionally niisquote to a tribunal the language of a book, statute, or decision;
(D) Shall not, knowing its invalidity, cite as authority a decision that has been overruled or a statute
that has been repealed or declared unconstitutional; and
22 (E) Shall not assert nersonal knowledue of the facts at issue, except when testifying as a witness
23 The circumstances show that Defendant Ryan Patterson was a named defendantin the caption
of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and was not sued as a DOE within the First Amended
25
Complaint. Plaintiff only targeted and directed the Fifth to Fourteenth Causes ofAction towards
26
Defendant Patterson, but not the First to Fourth Causes ofAction.
27
Here in this case, on 03/13/2023, Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorneys of record filed
5
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
1
a Special Motion to Strike as to the First to Fourth Causes of Action, and sought a court order
2
on their filing by false pretenses. The Plaintiff, Phuong Nguyen did not target nor direct any
portion of the First to Fourth Causes of Action towards Defendant Ryan Patterson.
Therefore, defendant Ryan Patterson and their attorneys deceived the court, and engaged in
6
collusive behavior exemplary of moral turpitude by the filing of their Special Motion to
7
Strike as to the First to Fourth Causes of Action of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
8
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court deny Defendant's Motion for
An Award of Attorney Fees and Costs for the aforesaid reasons.
18
sy P~
Dated: May 18, 2023
NQAAAÃ/F4
%J
Phuong T, Nguyen, Plaintiff
See attached Declaration of Phuong T. Nguyen
17
DECLARATION OF PIIUONG T. NOUYEN
I, Phuong T. Nguyen, make this declaration based on personal knowledge,
20
I declare as follows:
21
I make this declaration based on personal knowledge and if called to testify, l could testify
22
to the same.
Defendant Ryan Patterson was not the true prevailing party as to his Special Motion to Strike
as to the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action, because Plaintiff Phuong Nguyen
26
did not name Defendant Ryan Patterson as a target as to the First — Fourth Causes of Action.
27
within Plaintiff'guyen's First Amended Complaint. The Order arantina the entire Anti-Slann
28
6
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
was therefore obtained bv extrinsic fraud.
Therefore, any award of Attorney Fees and Costs would be offset as to the loss in the
3
First — Fourth Causes of Action.
In fact, as to the issue of Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorney attempting to dupe the
5
court into asking for an Award ofAttorney Fees for their work on Drafting a Special Motion
to Strike as to the First — Fourth Causes ofAction, Defendant Rvan Patterson and his attornev
should be SANCTIONED for Bad Faith Tactics and attemntina to defraud the court and Plaintiff
as to their false claim that thev suffered Leual Work losses for Working on a Special Motion
10
to Strike as to the First -Fourth Causes of Action which Plaintiff did NOT even sue Defendant
11
Ryan Patterson within.
12
The court has discretion to fix the Court Order granting the Anti-Slapp as to Equitable Relief
14 based on the showing of the extrinsi~craud committed bv Defendant ltvan Patterson and his counsel.
15
TIIIE DI";1'I NDANT RYAN PATTI',RSO'N SOI.ifs1-l'T f 1111",, SAM'I,", RI,'I,'IEF2
FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY FKKS WITIIIN THE SPECIAL
MOTION TO STRIKE WHICH WAS ALREADY DENIED.
See California Code of Civil Procedure eI 1008[8]
Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorney of record already sought an award of attorney fees
19
within their filed Special Motion to Strike [Anti-Slapp], in which the Attorney Fee Request
20
was already denied upon the court's issuance of the Order on the Granting of the Defendant's
21
Special Motion to Strike.
23 The court cannot change the prior order issued, unless a Motion for Reconsideration was
filed and was granted.
25
The circumstances here show that the court heard oral arguments on Defendant Ryan Patterson's
26
Special Motion to Strike on the date of 04/14/2023.
27
The Court issued its order on Defendant Ryan Patterson's Special Motion to Strike
7
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOS1TION TO PATTERSON'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
1
on the date of 04/18/2023 which was filed on 04/20/2023.
2
On the date of 05/03/2023 Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorneys of record
filed a Motion for An Award of Attorney Fees and Costs which was 13 Davs after the
Order arantina the Defendants'nti-Slane Motion was filed in the court.
Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorney are unhappy with the court's Order issued
7
from April 18, 2023.
8
They cannot change tbe existing Court Order of Granted Anti-Slapp with Denied Award
of Attorney Fees by filing a Motion for An Award of Attorney Fees, because their
Motion for Attorney Fees is an attempt to change the court's existing Order that was issued
on April 18, 2023 and filed on April 20, 2023.
13
Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorneys of Record should not be granted «n award of
'i
Attorney Fees based on the following rule issues:
5
RULE //1: CCP 5 1008l13'I reouires that when a uartv seeks the same relief that was nreviouslv
17 denied that thev must provide a declaration referencina that the same relief was souuht
nreviouslv, that the relief was denied, and exnlain the new circumstances.
19
Whereas the Defendant Patterson souPht attomev fees within his Anti-Slaoo Motion which
80
was heard on Aoril 14. 2023, but was denied as to the Attornev Fees reauest.
21
Yet. he has not orovided a declaration. nor has he filed a Moton for reconsideration.
23 RULE //2: CCP 8 1008IA'I reauires that a Motion for Reconsideration be filed within 10
davs of the entered order at issue. Yet. Defendant Patterson has not filed a Motion for
25
Reconsideration.
26
Here, in this case Defendant committed extrinsic fraud by filing an Anti-Slapp on all causes of
27
action, when Plaintiff only sued him on the 5'" to 14is Causes of Action.
8
PLAINTIFF'8 OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'S PiOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
1
The court erred by granting the Anti-slapp as to all Causes of Action, because Defendant
2
Patterson was not sued within the First to Fourth Caused of Action with Plaintiff s First
Amended Complaint.
Now, after Defendant was successful in duping the court into believing that he was a target
6
of the First To Fourth Causes of Action, he has the nerve to ask for an Award of Attorney
7
Fees to celebrate the extrinsic fraud and collusion he and his attorney has engaged in.
8
The court owes a duty to Plaintiff to Equitably correct the issues.
9
See attached Exhibits:
'I. 1
Exhibit "A" The Order Granting Defendant Patterson's Anti-Slapp, which denied
1.2
his request for an award of Attorney Fees
I. 3
Exhibit "B" Defendant Patterson's Notice of Motion and Special Motion to Strike
showing that he and his lawyer improperly moved to strike All Fourteen Causes of Action,
16
even though that Plaintiff" s First Amended Complaint shows that Defendant Patterson
:I. 7
was not a Target of the First to Fourth Causes of Action.
KXklf BIT "C" CCl'l 1000 [Seeking the same relief twice by two separate motions
19 after the Request for Attorney Fees was already
20 denied within the Anti-Slapp Motion
on April 14, 2023, is improper ]
21
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true
22
23
and correct, except for statements based on information and belief, which I believe to be true.
2t
Dated: May 18, 2023
P~~ (~~
25
l3y N
27
Phuong T. Nguyen
9
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'S NOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
EXHI BIT "A"
[Order granting Anti-Slapp
and Denying Request for Attorney Fees]
SCOTT A. FREEDMAN (SBN 240872)
ZACKS, FREEDMAN & PATTERSON, PC
601 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 400
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 956-8100
Y~]LP g
s 'YBIl "Isdo Qpsstyastsv[er Oesy
Fax: (415) 288-9755
Email: scott zfplaw.corn Af% 'r".{) 7073
t. 1 Ef'j&/PE
JAMES B. KRAUS (SBN 184118) Hg
816 ALVARADO STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94114 (f 'spulyeirg
Tel: (415) 606-8535
Email: jbkrausesq aol.corn
SUPERIOR COURT — STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRANCISCO — IJNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
PHUONG T. NGUYEN, Case No.: CGC-21-591803
Plahttlff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RYAN
JAMES PATTERSON'S SPECIAL MOTION
TO STRIKE
LONDONBREED; CCP 425.16
$
MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO;
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO„ Date; April 14, 2023 (reset by Court)
PG & E Corporation; Pacific Gas Time: 9:30 a,m.
and Electric Company„a Corporation;
RECOLOGY EAST BAY, a Corporation; Judge: Charles F, Haines
Dept: 501
Recology Sunset Scavenger, a business
form unknown; SAN FRANCISCO PI JBLIC Trial Date: None set
UTITLITIES COMMISSION; PAUL M,
MIYAMOTO aka San Francisco County
Sheriff; Zameer Riaz Azatn; Abdul Azam„
20 Jason Paul Voelker; Juan S. Ruiz aka Juan
Salvador Ruiz; SHARAD JAIN; CRASHPAD,
21 LLC; CRASHPADZ INC; EXCALIBUR
TRADING LLC; SF CRASHPAD LLC; SF
22 CRASHPADZ LLC; SFC CRASHPAD LLC;
SFO CRASHPAD LLC; DC CRASHPAD,
23 LLC; COREY A. TEAGUE;
RYAN JAMES PATTERSON;
24 JENNIFER EUN JIN CHOI'„
TINA T. TAM;WILLIAM J. COAKER;
25 MICHAEL J. BOROVINA JR4 and DOES I
through 100,
26
Defendants.
28
Order Granting Defendant Patterson's Special Motion to Strike
I
', )
Defendant Patterson's special motion to strike (SLAPP) under CCP tt 425.16 came on for
2 hearing on April 14, 2023 in Dept. 501 of this Court located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco,
3 the Hon. Charles F. Haines„presiding. James B. Kraus appeared for moving party Patterson. Plaintiff
4 Phuong T. Nguyen appeared in pro per. After oral argument, the Court adopts its tentative ruling:
Defendant Ryan James Patterson's Special Motion To Strike is GRANTED. The motion is
6 timely filed and properly served by mail to Plaintiffs mailing address of record (See Proof of Service
7 filed on March 13, 2023). Moving party sustained its burden under the ftrst prong of Anti-SLAPP.
8 Plaintiff'failed to carry her burden under the second prong of the Anti-SLAPP to show a probability of
9 prevailing on the merits. The Court notes that Plaintiff appears to misread the Patterson declaration.
10 Mr. Patterson declares that he is a shareholder of Zacks, Freedman and Patterson, not a shareholder of
11 Crashpadz.
0
mate 12 IT IS SO ORDERED:
L'
s
1 R.'3
rg
Ap il 14, 2023
+/(g/p g y
'-~;'14 ,Judge, Superior Court
log 17
18
]9
21
22
23
24
27
28
Order Granting Defendant Patterson's Special Motion to Strike
2
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - CCP
PART a. OF CIVIL ACTIONS [3oy - Io6z.zo] ( Part 2 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 14. OF MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS [989 - to 6m.zo] ( Title 14 enacted 1872.
)
CHAPTER 4. Motions and Orders [xoog - roog] ( Chapter 4 enacted 1872. )
(a) When an application for mi order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in pats, or granted, or
granted conditionally, or on to&ms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of
written notice of entiy of the order and based upon new or dilferent facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the
same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The
party
making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and io what judge, what order or decisions
were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown,
(b) A patsy who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on &crms,
may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be
shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what neiv or
different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. F&ir a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a
subsequent application may be revoked or set aside mi ex parte motion.
(c) If a court at any time determines that'here has beni a change ol'law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may
do so on its own motion and enter a ditfcrent order.
(d) A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7, In addition, an &irder
made contrary io this section may be revoked by ihe judge or commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge of the court in which
the action or proceeding is pendmg.
(e) This section specifies the couri*s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of
previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion„
whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or finaL No application to reconsider any order or for the
renewal of a previous moti&m may be considered bv any judge or court unless made accor&hng to this section.
(f) For the purposes of this section, an alleged new or different law shall not include a! ster enacted statute without a retroactive
application.
(g) An order denying a motion for reconsideration made pursuant to subdivision (a) is not separately appealable. However„ if the
order that was the subject of a motion for reconsideration is appealable, the denial of the motion for reconsideration is reviewable as
part ol'an appeal fiom that order.
(h) This section applies to all applications for interim orders.
(Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 78, Sec. 1. (AB 1067) Effective Jannnry1, 2012)
EXHIBIT "B"
[Defendant Pattterson's Notice of Motion and
Special Motion to Strike improperly directed to all 14 Causes of Action,
when he was only targeted as to the 5'" to 14'" causes]
SCOTT A. FREEDMAN (SBN 240872)
ZACKS, FREEDMAN & PATTERSON, PC
601 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 400
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 ELECTRONICALLY
Tel:
Fax:
(415) 956-8100
(415) 288-9755
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Franeiseo
Email: scott zfplaw.corn
03/13/2023
JAMES B. KRAUS (SBN 184118) Clerk of the Court
BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
816 ALVARADO STREET
Deputy Clerk
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94114
Tel: (415) 606-8535
Email: jbkrausesq(ibaol.corn
SUPERIOR COURT — STATE OF CALIFORNIA
V 10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED CIVIL lURISDICTION
11
C' PHUONG T. NGUYEN, Case No.: CGC-21-591803
12
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT RYAN JAMES PATTERSON'S
13 NOTR.E OF Sl'ECIAL M(JTION AND
SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE
& I) 14
I.ONDON BRFFD; MAYOR OF SAN
Q FI&ANCISCO; CITY Ol SAN FRANCISCO;
CCP (J 425.16
15
P Gift E Corporation; Paci fto Gas and Flectric
Company, a Corporation; RECOLO(JY EAST Date: April 10, 2023
16
BAY, a Corporation; Recology Sunset 1 11ne; 9:30 a.m.
17 Scavenger, a business form unknown; SAN Judge: Charles F, 'Ilaines
FRANCISCO PUBLPC UTITI..ITIES Dept: 501
18 COMMISSION; PAUI. M. MIYAMOTO aka Trial Date: None set
cu
San Francisco County Sheriff; Zameer Riaz
19 Azam; Abdul Azam; Jason Paul Voelker; Juan S.
Ruiz aka Juan Salvador Ruiz; SHARAD JAIN;
20 CRASHPAD„LLC; CRASHPADZ INC„
EXCALIBUR TRADING LLC; SF
21 CRASHPAD LLC; SF CRASHPADZ LLC; SFC
CRASHPAD LLC; SFO CRASHPAD LLC; DC
22 CRASHPAD, LLC; COREY A. TEAGUE;
RYAN JAMES PATTERSON; JENNIFER
23 EUNJIN CHOI;
TINA T. TAM; WILLIAM J. COAKER;
24 MICHAEL J. BOROVINA JR4 and DOES 1
through 100,
25
Defendants.
26
27
28
Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion (SLAPP)
I
I TO EACH PARTY AND TIJEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
Please take notice that at 9:30 a.m. on April 10, 2023, in Dept. 501 of this Court, located at 400
McAllister Street, San Francisco, the Hon. Charles F. Haines, presiding, defendant Ryan James
Patterson will move this Court for an order specially striking the first amended complaint, jointly and
severally, the following:
1. First cause of action for FRAUD against Ryan James Patterson (as DOE ¹2);
2. Second cause of action for DAMAGE TO REAL PROPERTY against Ryan James
Patterson (as DOE ¹2);
3. third cause of action for EJECTMENT against Ryan James Patterson (as DOE ¹2);
V 10 4. fourth cause of action for TRESPASS against Ryan James Patterson (as DOE ¹2);
5, ftfth cause of action for INTENTIONAL INFI.,ICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Q c
w5a
P,
12
13
¹2),',
against Ryan James Patterson (and as DOE
sixth cause of action for Temporary Restraining Order; Preliminary and Permanent
Injunction against Ryan James Patterson (and as DOE ¹2);
$ g P" 7. seventh cause of action for PRIVATE NUISANCE against Ryan James Patterson (as
16 DOE ¹2');
Q
eighth cause of. action lor INDEMNITY against Ryan James Patterson (and as DOI". ¹2);
ninth cause of action for DECLARATORY RELIEF against Ryan James Patterson (and
as DOE ¹2);
20 10 tenth cause of action for VIOLATION OF CREDIT REPORTING against Ryan James
21 Patterson (and as DOE ¹2);
22 eleventh cause of action for AN ACCOUNTING against Ryan James Patterson (and as
DOE ¹2);
24 12. twelfth cause of action for SLANDER OF TITLE against Ryan James Patterson (and as
25 DOE ¹2);
26 13. thirteenth cause of action for CIVIL EXTORTION against Ryan James Patterson (and as
27 DOE ¹2);
28 14. fourteenth cause of action for CONSPIRACY AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS against Ryan
Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion (SLAPP)
2
1 James Patterson (and as DOE tt2);
2 15, The allegations against Ryan James Patterson comprising paragraph 11.
3 This motion is made pursuant to CCP tj 425.16. It is made on the grounds that each challenged
4 cause of action and the challenged paragraph 11 arise from protected conduct within the meaning of
5 CCP ti 425.16 and Patterson is entitled, as a matter of law, to an order striking them, jointly and
6 severally. This motion is based on this notice and motion, the memorandum of points and authorities in
7 support, the declarations of Ryan James Patterson and Halhe Cole, and the entire file in this action.
8 Date: March 13, 2023 JAMES B. KRAUS
10
,,~si &~
By: James 8. Kraus
Attorney for Defendant
Ryan James Patterson
13
&53 14
15
Q U
16
18
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion (SLAPP)
3
EXHIBIT "t:"
[CCP 5 1008]
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - CCP
oO
PART z. OF CIVIL ACTIONS [807- 106nPO] ( Part 2 enacted 2872. )
TITLE 14. OF MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS [989 -1062.20] ( Title 14 enacted 1872.
)
CHAPTER 4. Motions and Orders [1003 - 1008] ( Cliaptet 4 enacted 1872. )
(a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in pari, or granted, or
1008. granted conditionally, or on tenne, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of
written notice of enny of the order and based upon ncw or differenl facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the
same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The
party
making the application shall stale by atfidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions
were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.
(b) A parry who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or pat%, or gmnied condiiionally or on terms,
r may make a subsequent application t'or the same order upon new or different Facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be
shown by affidavit what application was made be Fore, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or
different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with tliis subdivision, any order made on a
subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion.
(c) lf a court at any time determines that there has been a. change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it tattered, it may
do so on its own motion and enter a dilferent order.
(d) A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7. 1n addition, an order
made contrary to this section may be revolted by the judge or commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge of the court in which
the action or proceeding is pending,
ot'revious
(e) This section specifies tire court's jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals
motions, and applies to ag applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the rmiewal ot'a previous motion,
whether the order deciding the previous marter or motion is interim or final. No application to rcconsidcr any order or for the
renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.
(f) For the purposes of this section, an alleged new or different law shall not include a later enacted statute without a retroaclive
application,
(g) An order denying a motion for reconsideration made pursuant to subdivision (a) is not separately appealable. However, if the
order that was the subject of a motion for reconsideration is appealable, the denial of the motion for reconsideration is reviewable as
part of an appeal from that order.
(h) This section applies to all applications for interim orders.
(Atuended byState. 2011, Cb. 7tt, Sec. 1. (AB 1067) b ffective January 1, 2012.)
AeC 58 I
me J PVCttt'vstS 'f
JCitlttd
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF LOS SAN FRANCISCO )
I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within entitled action.
5
My business address is
P.O. Box 981, Brisbane. CA 94005
~May 18, 2023, I served the document attached hereto
or provided herewith, namely:
PLAINTIFF PHUONG T. NGUYEN'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
RYAN JAMES PATTERSON'S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF
ATTORNFY FEES AND COSTS FOR PREVAILING ON A SPECIAL
10 MOTION TO STRIKE; MEMORANDI.IM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIFS IN
OPPOSITION; AND DFCI.,ARATION OF PHTIONG T. NGUYEN
(by Mail) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage
thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the U.S. Mail, addressed as setforth below. 1 am readily
familiar with the attorney for the party serving this document's practice for collection and
processing correspondence for maili~g. 1tis deposited with the US. Postal Service on the same day
as the day of collection in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion ofparty
served, service is presunted invalid ifpostal cancellation date ur postage nreter date is more than 1
1 5
day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
16
X by Electronic Service pursuant to Emergency Rule 12
17
ADDRESSES:
Natassia Kwan, Attorney I'or City Defendants, Miyamoto and Public I Jtilities Commission
Email: Natassia.Kwon')SFCitvAttv.ore
20 Scott A. Freedman [Attorney for Deft. Ryan James Patterson ] Email: Scott zefnlaw.corn
James B. Kraus [Attorney for Deft. Ryan James Patterson [ Email: Jbkrausesa(kaol.corn
22
I certify or declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the
23
p~
foregoing is true and correct.
24
Executed on May 18, 2023
27
;v Server: Dorm Petterson
10
PLAZNTZFF'S OPPOSZTZON TO PATTERSON'S V7OTZON FOR ATTORNEY FEES
Preview
Phuong T. Nguyen By Fax P.O. Box 585 Brisbane, CA 94005 ELECTRONICALLY (650)228-6880 FILED Plaintiff, pro se Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 05/18/2023 Clerk of the Court SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA BY: ERNALYN BURA Deputy Clerk FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — Civil Unlimited Jurisdiction PHUONG T. NGUYEN, Case Nox CGC-21-591803 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF PHUONG T. NGUYEN'S 10 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT vs. RYAN JAMES PATTERSON'S 1.1 MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF LONDON BREED; ATTORNEY FFES AND COSTS MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO; FOR PREVAILINC ON A SPECIAI. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO; PG Jt E Corporation: Pacific Gas MOTION TO STRIKE; MEMORANDUM OF and Electric Company, a Corporation; POINTS ANIJ AUTHORITIES IN RECOLOCIY EAST BAY, a OPPOSITION; AND DECLARATION Corporation; Ol" PHl JONCi ',I.', NGUYEN Recology Sunset Scavenger, a "Telephone Appearance" business form unknown; SAN FRANCISCO 17 I"UBLIC UTITLITIES COMMISSION; PAUL 18 M. MIYAMOTO aka San Francisco Date: June 1, ZOZ3 County Sheriff; Zamcer Riaz Azam; Time: 9:30AM Abdul Azam; Jason Paul Voelkcr; Dept, 501 20 Juan S. Ruiz aka Juan Salvador Ruiz; SHARAD JAIN; CRASHPAD LLC; Judge: Hon. Charles Haines CRASHPADZ INC; EXCALIBUR Estimated Time required: 15 minutes 21 TRADING LLC; SF CRASHPAD 22 LLC; SF CRASHPADZ LLC; SFC Trial Date: Not yet set CRASHPAD LLC; SFO CRASHPAD 23 LLC; DC CRASHPAD, LLC; COREY A. TEAGUE; RYAN JAMES PATTERSON; 25 JENNIFER EUNJIN CHOI; TINA T. TAM;WILLIAM J. 26 COAKER; MICHAEL J. BOROVINA JR.; and 27 DOES 1 through 100, 28 Defendants t PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 5 Comes Plaintiff Phuong T. Nguyen, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff in opposition to Defendant Ryan James Patterson's Motion for An Award of Attorney Fees and Costs for Prevailing on a Special Motion to Strike against Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint, and in opposition states, alleges, and argues as follows: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AIJTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'OTION I. STATEMENT OF FACTS 12 WHO WAS REALLY THF. PREVAII.ING PARTY 13 ON THE ANTI-SLAPP AS TO THE FIRST TO FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION? l4 Defendant Ryan Patterson was not the true prevailing party as to his Special Motion to Strike as to the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action, because Plaintiff Phuong Nguyen 16 did not name Defendant Ryan Patterson as a target as to the First — Fourth Causes of Action. 18 within Plaintiff" Nguyen's First Amended Complaint. The Order erantrng the entire Anti-bi~a was therefore obtained bv extrinsic fraud. 20 Therefore, any award of Attorney Fees and Costs would be offset as to the loss in the 21 First — Fourth Causes of Action. 22 23 In fact, as to the issue of Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorney attempting to dupe the 24 court into asking for an Award ofAttorney Fees for their work on Drafting a Special Motion to Strike as to the First — Fourth Causes ofAction, Defendant Rvan Patterson and his attornev 26 should be SANCTIONED for Bad Faith Tactics and attemntinv to defraud the court and Plaintiff 27 as to th'eir false claim that thev suffered Leual Work losses for Working on a Special Motion 28 2 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'S NOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES to Strike as to the First -Fourth Causes of Action which Plaintiff did NOT even sue Defendant Ryan Patterson within. 3 The court has discretion to fix the Court Order granting the Anti-Slapp as to Equitable Relief based on the showing of the extrinsic fraud committed bv Defendant Evan Patterson and his counsel. 5 THE DEFENDANT RYAN PATTERSON SOUGHT THE SAME RELIEF FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES WITHIN THE SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE WHICH WAS ALREADY DENIED. See California Code of Civil Procedure $ 1008[B] 8 Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorney of record already sought an award of attorney fees 9 Ip within their filed Special Motion to Strike [Anti-Slapp], in which the Attoniey Fee Request was already denied upon the court's issuance of the Order on the Granting of the Defendant's 12 Special Motion to Strike. 13 The court cannot change the prior order issued, imless a Motion for Reconsideration was j s filed anil was granted. 15 The circumstances here show that the court heard oral arguments on Defendant Ryan Patterson's 17 Special Motion to Strike on the date of 04/14/2023. The Court issued its order on Defendant Ryan Patterson's Special Motion to Strike on the date of 04/Ig/2023 which was filed on 04/20/2023, 2P On the date of 05/03/2023 Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorneys of record 21 filed a Motion for An Award of Attorney Fees and Costs which was 13 Davs after the 23 Order arantina the Defendants* Anti-Slann Motion was filed in the court. Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorney are unhappy with the court's Order issued 25 from April 18, 2023. 26 They cannot change the existing Court Order of Granted Anti-Slapp with Denied Award 27 of Attorney Fees by filing a Motion for An Award of Attorney Fees, because their 3 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 1 Motion for Attorney Fees is an attempt to change the court's existing Order that was issued 2 on April 18, 2023 and Bled on April 20, 2023. Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorneys of Record should not be granted an award of Attorney Fees based on the following rule issues: RULE ¹I: CCP 5 10081 Bl reauires that when a nartv seeks the same relief that was nreviouslv 7 denied that thev must nrovide a declaration referencinu that the same relief was souuht nreviouslv, that the relief was denied. and exnlain the new circumstances. 9 Whereas the Defendant Patterson souaht attorney fees within his Anti-Slapn Motion which was heard on Anril 14, 2023. but was denied as to the Attomev Fees request. 12 Yet. he has not nrovidcd a declaration, nor has he tiled a Moton for reconsideration. 13 RlJI,E ¹2: CCP 5 10081A1 reauires that a Motion for Reconsideration be filed within 10 14 davs of the entered order at issue,Yet Detbndant Patterson has not tiled a Motion for Recons1d erat ton. 17 ll. DEFFNDANI'S FAII,URE IN FOLLOWlNG CCP 55 1008 IA1 k 10081~B IS SANCTIONABLE PER CAI.IFORNIA RULFS OF COURT. RULE 2.30lbl. CRC 2.30 (b) re. Sanctions 20 In addition to any other sanctions permitted by law, the court may order a person, after written notice and an opportunity to be heard, to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the court or an aggrieved 22 person, or both, for failure without good cause to comply with the applicable rules. For the purposes 23 of this rule, "person" means a party, a party's attorney, a witness, and an insurer or any other 24 individual or entity whose consent is necessary for the disposition of the case. If a failure to comply 26 with an applicable rule is the responsibility of counsel and not of the party, any penalty must be imposed on counsel and must not adversely affect the party's cause of action or defense thereto. 28 4 PLAINTIFF'8 OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'8 NOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES Here, in this case Defendant committed extrinsic fraud by filing an Anti-Slapp on all causes of action, when Plaintiff only sued him on the 5s'o 14'" Causes of Action. 3 The court erred by granting the Anti-slapp as to all Causes of Action, because Defendant Patterson was not sued within the First to Fourth Caused of Action with Plaintiff's First 5 Amended Complaint. Now, after Defendant was successful in duping the court into believing that he was a target of the First To Fourth Causes of Action, he has the nerve to ask for an Award of Attorney Fees to celebrate the extrinsic fraud and collusion he and his attorney has engaged in. 10 The court owes a duty to Plaintiff to Equitably correct the issues. 11 III. DEFENI)ANTS ARE". ATTEMPTING TO MISLE"AD Tl-IE COURT AS TO 'I'RUTII AND RELE!VANCE OF THEIR EXIIIE3ITS. 13 /I ules of Professional Conduct Rule 5-200 Trial Conduct hi presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member: (A) Shall employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to the member such means only 16 as are consistent with truth; 17 (I3) Shall not seek to mislead the judge, judicial officer, or jury by an artifice or false statement of fact or law; (C) Shall not intentionally niisquote to a tribunal the language of a book, statute, or decision; (D) Shall not, knowing its invalidity, cite as authority a decision that has been overruled or a statute that has been repealed or declared unconstitutional; and 22 (E) Shall not assert nersonal knowledue of the facts at issue, except when testifying as a witness 23 The circumstances show that Defendant Ryan Patterson was a named defendantin the caption of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint and was not sued as a DOE within the First Amended 25 Complaint. Plaintiff only targeted and directed the Fifth to Fourteenth Causes ofAction towards 26 Defendant Patterson, but not the First to Fourth Causes ofAction. 27 Here in this case, on 03/13/2023, Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorneys of record filed 5 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 1 a Special Motion to Strike as to the First to Fourth Causes of Action, and sought a court order 2 on their filing by false pretenses. The Plaintiff, Phuong Nguyen did not target nor direct any portion of the First to Fourth Causes of Action towards Defendant Ryan Patterson. Therefore, defendant Ryan Patterson and their attorneys deceived the court, and engaged in 6 collusive behavior exemplary of moral turpitude by the filing of their Special Motion to 7 Strike as to the First to Fourth Causes of Action of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. 8 IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court deny Defendant's Motion for An Award of Attorney Fees and Costs for the aforesaid reasons. 18 sy P~ Dated: May 18, 2023 NQAAAÃ/F4 %J Phuong T, Nguyen, Plaintiff See attached Declaration of Phuong T. Nguyen 17 DECLARATION OF PIIUONG T. NOUYEN I, Phuong T. Nguyen, make this declaration based on personal knowledge, 20 I declare as follows: 21 I make this declaration based on personal knowledge and if called to testify, l could testify 22 to the same. Defendant Ryan Patterson was not the true prevailing party as to his Special Motion to Strike as to the First, Second, Third and Fourth Causes of Action, because Plaintiff Phuong Nguyen 26 did not name Defendant Ryan Patterson as a target as to the First — Fourth Causes of Action. 27 within Plaintiff'guyen's First Amended Complaint. The Order arantina the entire Anti-Slann 28 6 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES was therefore obtained bv extrinsic fraud. Therefore, any award of Attorney Fees and Costs would be offset as to the loss in the 3 First — Fourth Causes of Action. In fact, as to the issue of Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorney attempting to dupe the 5 court into asking for an Award ofAttorney Fees for their work on Drafting a Special Motion to Strike as to the First — Fourth Causes ofAction, Defendant Rvan Patterson and his attornev should be SANCTIONED for Bad Faith Tactics and attemntina to defraud the court and Plaintiff as to their false claim that thev suffered Leual Work losses for Working on a Special Motion 10 to Strike as to the First -Fourth Causes of Action which Plaintiff did NOT even sue Defendant 11 Ryan Patterson within. 12 The court has discretion to fix the Court Order granting the Anti-Slapp as to Equitable Relief 14 based on the showing of the extrinsi~craud committed bv Defendant ltvan Patterson and his counsel. 15 TIIIE DI";1'I NDANT RYAN PATTI',RSO'N SOI.ifs1-l'T f 1111",, SAM'I,", RI,'I,'IEF2 FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY FKKS WITIIIN THE SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE WHICH WAS ALREADY DENIED. See California Code of Civil Procedure eI 1008[8] Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorney of record already sought an award of attorney fees 19 within their filed Special Motion to Strike [Anti-Slapp], in which the Attorney Fee Request 20 was already denied upon the court's issuance of the Order on the Granting of the Defendant's 21 Special Motion to Strike. 23 The court cannot change the prior order issued, unless a Motion for Reconsideration was filed and was granted. 25 The circumstances here show that the court heard oral arguments on Defendant Ryan Patterson's 26 Special Motion to Strike on the date of 04/14/2023. 27 The Court issued its order on Defendant Ryan Patterson's Special Motion to Strike 7 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOS1TION TO PATTERSON'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 1 on the date of 04/18/2023 which was filed on 04/20/2023. 2 On the date of 05/03/2023 Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorneys of record filed a Motion for An Award of Attorney Fees and Costs which was 13 Davs after the Order arantina the Defendants'nti-Slane Motion was filed in the court. Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorney are unhappy with the court's Order issued 7 from April 18, 2023. 8 They cannot change tbe existing Court Order of Granted Anti-Slapp with Denied Award of Attorney Fees by filing a Motion for An Award of Attorney Fees, because their Motion for Attorney Fees is an attempt to change the court's existing Order that was issued on April 18, 2023 and filed on April 20, 2023. 13 Defendant Ryan Patterson and his attorneys of Record should not be granted «n award of 'i Attorney Fees based on the following rule issues: 5 RULE //1: CCP 5 1008l13'I reouires that when a uartv seeks the same relief that was nreviouslv 17 denied that thev must provide a declaration referencina that the same relief was souuht nreviouslv, that the relief was denied, and exnlain the new circumstances. 19 Whereas the Defendant Patterson souPht attomev fees within his Anti-Slaoo Motion which 80 was heard on Aoril 14. 2023, but was denied as to the Attornev Fees reauest. 21 Yet. he has not orovided a declaration. nor has he filed a Moton for reconsideration. 23 RULE //2: CCP 8 1008IA'I reauires that a Motion for Reconsideration be filed within 10 davs of the entered order at issue. Yet. Defendant Patterson has not filed a Motion for 25 Reconsideration. 26 Here, in this case Defendant committed extrinsic fraud by filing an Anti-Slapp on all causes of 27 action, when Plaintiff only sued him on the 5'" to 14is Causes of Action. 8 PLAINTIFF'8 OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'S PiOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 1 The court erred by granting the Anti-slapp as to all Causes of Action, because Defendant 2 Patterson was not sued within the First to Fourth Caused of Action with Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint. Now, after Defendant was successful in duping the court into believing that he was a target 6 of the First To Fourth Causes of Action, he has the nerve to ask for an Award of Attorney 7 Fees to celebrate the extrinsic fraud and collusion he and his attorney has engaged in. 8 The court owes a duty to Plaintiff to Equitably correct the issues. 9 See attached Exhibits: 'I. 1 Exhibit "A" The Order Granting Defendant Patterson's Anti-Slapp, which denied 1.2 his request for an award of Attorney Fees I. 3 Exhibit "B" Defendant Patterson's Notice of Motion and Special Motion to Strike showing that he and his lawyer improperly moved to strike All Fourteen Causes of Action, 16 even though that Plaintiff" s First Amended Complaint shows that Defendant Patterson :I. 7 was not a Target of the First to Fourth Causes of Action. KXklf BIT "C" CCl'l 1000 [Seeking the same relief twice by two separate motions 19 after the Request for Attorney Fees was already 20 denied within the Anti-Slapp Motion on April 14, 2023, is improper ] 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true 22 23 and correct, except for statements based on information and belief, which I believe to be true. 2t Dated: May 18, 2023 P~~ (~~ 25 l3y N 27 Phuong T. Nguyen 9 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO PATTERSON'S NOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES EXHI BIT "A" [Order granting Anti-Slapp and Denying Request for Attorney Fees] SCOTT A. FREEDMAN (SBN 240872) ZACKS, FREEDMAN & PATTERSON, PC 601 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 400 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 956-8100 Y~]LP g s 'YBIl "Isdo Qpsstyastsv[er Oesy Fax: (415) 288-9755 Email: scott zfplaw.corn Af% 'r".{) 7073 t. 1 Ef'j&/PE JAMES B. KRAUS (SBN 184118) Hg 816 ALVARADO STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94114 (f 'spulyeirg Tel: (415) 606-8535 Email: jbkrausesq aol.corn SUPERIOR COURT — STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRANCISCO — IJNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION PHUONG T. NGUYEN, Case No.: CGC-21-591803 Plahttlff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RYAN JAMES PATTERSON'S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE LONDONBREED; CCP 425.16 $ MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO; CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO„ Date; April 14, 2023 (reset by Court) PG & E Corporation; Pacific Gas Time: 9:30 a,m. and Electric Company„a Corporation; RECOLOGY EAST BAY, a Corporation; Judge: Charles F, Haines Dept: 501 Recology Sunset Scavenger, a business form unknown; SAN FRANCISCO PI JBLIC Trial Date: None set UTITLITIES COMMISSION; PAUL M, MIYAMOTO aka San Francisco County Sheriff; Zameer Riaz Azatn; Abdul Azam„ 20 Jason Paul Voelker; Juan S. Ruiz aka Juan Salvador Ruiz; SHARAD JAIN; CRASHPAD, 21 LLC; CRASHPADZ INC; EXCALIBUR TRADING LLC; SF CRASHPAD LLC; SF 22 CRASHPADZ LLC; SFC CRASHPAD LLC; SFO CRASHPAD LLC; DC CRASHPAD, 23 LLC; COREY A. TEAGUE; RYAN JAMES PATTERSON; 24 JENNIFER EUN JIN CHOI'„ TINA T. TAM;WILLIAM J. COAKER; 25 MICHAEL J. BOROVINA JR4 and DOES I through 100, 26 Defendants. 28 Order Granting Defendant Patterson's Special Motion to Strike I ', ) Defendant Patterson's special motion to strike (SLAPP) under CCP tt 425.16 came on for 2 hearing on April 14, 2023 in Dept. 501 of this Court located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, 3 the Hon. Charles F. Haines„presiding. James B. Kraus appeared for moving party Patterson. Plaintiff 4 Phuong T. Nguyen appeared in pro per. After oral argument, the Court adopts its tentative ruling: Defendant Ryan James Patterson's Special Motion To Strike is GRANTED. The motion is 6 timely filed and properly served by mail to Plaintiffs mailing address of record (See Proof of Service 7 filed on March 13, 2023). Moving party sustained its burden under the ftrst prong of Anti-SLAPP. 8 Plaintiff'failed to carry her burden under the second prong of the Anti-SLAPP to show a probability of 9 prevailing on the merits. The Court notes that Plaintiff appears to misread the Patterson declaration. 10 Mr. Patterson declares that he is a shareholder of Zacks, Freedman and Patterson, not a shareholder of 11 Crashpadz. 0 mate 12 IT IS SO ORDERED: L' s 1 R.'3 rg Ap il 14, 2023 +/(g/p g y '-~;'14 ,Judge, Superior Court log 17 18 ]9 21 22 23 24 27 28 Order Granting Defendant Patterson's Special Motion to Strike 2 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - CCP PART a. OF CIVIL ACTIONS [3oy - Io6z.zo] ( Part 2 enacted 1872. ) TITLE 14. OF MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS [989 - to 6m.zo] ( Title 14 enacted 1872. ) CHAPTER 4. Motions and Orders [xoog - roog] ( Chapter 4 enacted 1872. ) (a) When an application for mi order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in pats, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on to&ms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entiy of the order and based upon new or dilferent facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and io what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown, (b) A patsy who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or granted conditionally or on &crms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what neiv or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. F&ir a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside mi ex parte motion. (c) If a court at any time determines that'here has beni a change ol'law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a ditfcrent order. (d) A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7, In addition, an &irder made contrary io this section may be revoked by ihe judge or commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge of the court in which the action or proceeding is pendmg. (e) This section specifies the couri*s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion„ whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or finaL No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous moti&m may be considered bv any judge or court unless made accor&hng to this section. (f) For the purposes of this section, an alleged new or different law shall not include a! ster enacted statute without a retroactive application. (g) An order denying a motion for reconsideration made pursuant to subdivision (a) is not separately appealable. However„ if the order that was the subject of a motion for reconsideration is appealable, the denial of the motion for reconsideration is reviewable as part ol'an appeal fiom that order. (h) This section applies to all applications for interim orders. (Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 78, Sec. 1. (AB 1067) Effective Jannnry1, 2012) EXHIBIT "B" [Defendant Pattterson's Notice of Motion and Special Motion to Strike improperly directed to all 14 Causes of Action, when he was only targeted as to the 5'" to 14'" causes] SCOTT A. FREEDMAN (SBN 240872) ZACKS, FREEDMAN & PATTERSON, PC 601 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 400 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 ELECTRONICALLY Tel: Fax: (415) 956-8100 (415) 288-9755 FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Franeiseo Email: scott zfplaw.corn 03/13/2023 JAMES B. KRAUS (SBN 184118) Clerk of the Court BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE 816 ALVARADO STREET Deputy Clerk SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94114 Tel: (415) 606-8535 Email: jbkrausesq(ibaol.corn SUPERIOR COURT — STATE OF CALIFORNIA V 10 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — UNLIMITED CIVIL lURISDICTION 11 C' PHUONG T. NGUYEN, Case No.: CGC-21-591803 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT RYAN JAMES PATTERSON'S 13 NOTR.E OF Sl'ECIAL M(JTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE & I) 14 I.ONDON BRFFD; MAYOR OF SAN Q FI&ANCISCO; CITY Ol SAN FRANCISCO; CCP (J 425.16 15 P Gift E Corporation; Paci fto Gas and Flectric Company, a Corporation; RECOLO(JY EAST Date: April 10, 2023 16 BAY, a Corporation; Recology Sunset 1 11ne; 9:30 a.m. 17 Scavenger, a business form unknown; SAN Judge: Charles F, 'Ilaines FRANCISCO PUBLPC UTITI..ITIES Dept: 501 18 COMMISSION; PAUI. M. MIYAMOTO aka Trial Date: None set cu San Francisco County Sheriff; Zameer Riaz 19 Azam; Abdul Azam; Jason Paul Voelker; Juan S. Ruiz aka Juan Salvador Ruiz; SHARAD JAIN; 20 CRASHPAD„LLC; CRASHPADZ INC„ EXCALIBUR TRADING LLC; SF 21 CRASHPAD LLC; SF CRASHPADZ LLC; SFC CRASHPAD LLC; SFO CRASHPAD LLC; DC 22 CRASHPAD, LLC; COREY A. TEAGUE; RYAN JAMES PATTERSON; JENNIFER 23 EUNJIN CHOI; TINA T. TAM; WILLIAM J. COAKER; 24 MICHAEL J. BOROVINA JR4 and DOES 1 through 100, 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion (SLAPP) I I TO EACH PARTY AND TIJEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD: Please take notice that at 9:30 a.m. on April 10, 2023, in Dept. 501 of this Court, located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, the Hon. Charles F. Haines, presiding, defendant Ryan James Patterson will move this Court for an order specially striking the first amended complaint, jointly and severally, the following: 1. First cause of action for FRAUD against Ryan James Patterson (as DOE ¹2); 2. Second cause of action for DAMAGE TO REAL PROPERTY against Ryan James Patterson (as DOE ¹2); 3. third cause of action for EJECTMENT against Ryan James Patterson (as DOE ¹2); V 10 4. fourth cause of action for TRESPASS against Ryan James Patterson (as DOE ¹2); 5, ftfth cause of action for INTENTIONAL INFI.,ICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Q c w5a P, 12 13 ¹2),', against Ryan James Patterson (and as DOE sixth cause of action for Temporary Restraining Order; Preliminary and Permanent Injunction against Ryan James Patterson (and as DOE ¹2); $ g P" 7. seventh cause of action for PRIVATE NUISANCE against Ryan James Patterson (as 16 DOE ¹2'); Q eighth cause of. action lor INDEMNITY against Ryan James Patterson (and as DOI". ¹2); ninth cause of action for DECLARATORY RELIEF against Ryan James Patterson (and as DOE ¹2); 20 10 tenth cause of action for VIOLATION OF CREDIT REPORTING against Ryan James 21 Patterson (and as DOE ¹2); 22 eleventh cause of action for AN ACCOUNTING against Ryan James Patterson (and as DOE ¹2); 24 12. twelfth cause of action for SLANDER OF TITLE against Ryan James Patterson (and as 25 DOE ¹2); 26 13. thirteenth cause of action for CIVIL EXTORTION against Ryan James Patterson (and as 27 DOE ¹2); 28 14. fourteenth cause of action for CONSPIRACY AGAINST CIVIL RIGHTS against Ryan Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion (SLAPP) 2 1 James Patterson (and as DOE tt2); 2 15, The allegations against Ryan James Patterson comprising paragraph 11. 3 This motion is made pursuant to CCP tj 425.16. It is made on the grounds that each challenged 4 cause of action and the challenged paragraph 11 arise from protected conduct within the meaning of 5 CCP ti 425.16 and Patterson is entitled, as a matter of law, to an order striking them, jointly and 6 severally. This motion is based on this notice and motion, the memorandum of points and authorities in 7 support, the declarations of Ryan James Patterson and Halhe Cole, and the entire file in this action. 8 Date: March 13, 2023 JAMES B. KRAUS 10 ,,~si &~ By: James 8. Kraus Attorney for Defendant Ryan James Patterson 13 &53 14 15 Q U 16 18 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant's Notice of Motion and Motion (SLAPP) 3 EXHIBIT "t:" [CCP 5 1008] CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - CCP oO PART z. OF CIVIL ACTIONS [807- 106nPO] ( Part 2 enacted 2872. ) TITLE 14. OF MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS [989 -1062.20] ( Title 14 enacted 1872. ) CHAPTER 4. Motions and Orders [1003 - 1008] ( Cliaptet 4 enacted 1872. ) (a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in pari, or granted, or 1008. granted conditionally, or on tenne, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of enny of the order and based upon ncw or differenl facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall stale by atfidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. (b) A parry who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or pat%, or gmnied condiiionally or on terms, r may make a subsequent application t'or the same order upon new or different Facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made be Fore, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with tliis subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte motion. (c) lf a court at any time determines that there has been a. change of law that warrants it to reconsider a prior order it tattered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a dilferent order. (d) A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7. 1n addition, an order made contrary to this section may be revolted by the judge or commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge of the court in which the action or proceeding is pending, ot'revious (e) This section specifies tire court's jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals motions, and applies to ag applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the rmiewal ot'a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous marter or motion is interim or final. No application to rcconsidcr any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section. (f) For the purposes of this section, an alleged new or different law shall not include a later enacted statute without a retroaclive application, (g) An order denying a motion for reconsideration made pursuant to subdivision (a) is not separately appealable. However, if the order that was the subject of a motion for reconsideration is appealable, the denial of the motion for reconsideration is reviewable as part of an appeal from that order. (h) This section applies to all applications for interim orders. (Atuended byState. 2011, Cb. 7tt, Sec. 1. (AB 1067) b ffective January 1, 2012.) AeC 58 I me J PVCttt'vstS 'f JCitlttd 1 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS SAN FRANCISCO ) I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within entitled action. 5 My business address is P.O. Box 981, Brisbane. CA 94005 ~May 18, 2023, I served the document attached hereto or provided herewith, namely: PLAINTIFF PHUONG T. NGUYEN'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT RYAN JAMES PATTERSON'S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNFY FEES AND COSTS FOR PREVAILING ON A SPECIAL 10 MOTION TO STRIKE; MEMORANDI.IM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIFS IN OPPOSITION; AND DFCI.,ARATION OF PHTIONG T. NGUYEN (by Mail) By placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the U.S. Mail, addressed as setforth below. 1 am readily familiar with the attorney for the party serving this document's practice for collection and processing correspondence for maili~g. 1tis deposited with the US. Postal Service on the same day as the day of collection in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion ofparty served, service is presunted invalid ifpostal cancellation date ur postage nreter date is more than 1 1 5 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 16 X by Electronic Service pursuant to Emergency Rule 12 17 ADDRESSES: Natassia Kwan, Attorney I'or City Defendants, Miyamoto and Public I Jtilities Commission Email: Natassia.Kwon')SFCitvAttv.ore 20 Scott A. Freedman [Attorney for Deft. Ryan James Patterson ] Email: Scott zefnlaw.corn James B. Kraus [Attorney for Deft. Ryan James Patterson [ Email: Jbkrausesa(kaol.corn 22 I certify or declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of California that the 23 p~ foregoing is true and correct. 24 Executed on May 18, 2023 27 ;v Server: Dorm Petterson 10 PLAZNTZFF'S OPPOSZTZON TO PATTERSON'S V7OTZON FOR ATTORNEY FEES