Motion for Sanctions in PHUONG T. NGUYEN VS. LONDON BREED ET AL| Trellis.Law

On May 25, 2021 a Order was filed involving a dispute between Nguyen, Phuong T. P.O. Box, and Azam, Abdul, Azam, Zameer Riaz, Berger, Chaska, Borovina, Michael, Breed, London, Choi, Jennifer Eunjin, City And County Of San Francisco, City Of San Francisco, Coaker, William J., Crashpadz Inc, Dc Crashpad, Llc, Does 1 Through 100, Excalibur Trading Llc, Guaiumi, Jim, Guy, Kevin, Jain, Sharad, Masry, Omar M, Mayor Of San Francisco, Miyamoto, Paul M., Pacific Gas And Electric Company, Pg & E Corporation, Rahaim, John, Recology East Bay, Recology Sunset Scavenger, Ruiz, Juan S., San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Sfc Crashpad Llc, Sf Crashpadz Llc, Sfo Crashpad Llc, Tam, Tina T., Teague, Corey, Teague, Cory A., The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Voelker, Jason Paul, Patterson, Ryan James, for FRAUD in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
ELECTRONICALLY
Phuong T. Nguyen By Fax FILED
2 P.O. Box 585 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
Brisbane, CA 94005
3
(650)228-6880 08/25/2023
Clerk of the Court
4 Plaintiff, pro se BY: EDWARD SANTOS
Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THK COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — Civil Unlimited Jurisdiction

PHUONG T. NGUYEN, Case No.: CGC-21-591803

Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF PHUONG T. NGUYEN'S
10 DECLARATION TO SATISFY
vs, 21-DAY SAFE HARBOR PERIOD
11 AND MEET AND CONFER RULES
LONDON BREED; REGARDING PKNDIN'G
12 MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO; MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO; SANCTIONS AND FOR AN AWARD OF
13
PG tk E Corporation; Pacific Gas PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST
14 and Electric Company, a Corporation; DEFENDANTS LONDON BREED, THK SAN
RECOLOGY EAST BAY, a FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIKS
15 Corporation; Recology Sunset
Scavenger, a business form unknown;
COMMISSION& PAUL MIYAMOTO,
16 SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC TINA TAM& MICHAEL BOROVINA
UTITLITKS'OMMISSION; PAUL AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD,
17 M. MIYAMOTO aka San Fr'ancisco NATASSIA. K%AN [and attached Exhibits]
County Sheriff; Zameer Riaz Azam;
18 Abdul Azam; Jason Paul Voelker;
19

20
S~
Juan S. Ruiz aka Juan Salvador Ruiz;

CRASHPADZ
JAIN; CRASHPAD LLC;
INC; EXCALIBUR Date: To Be Determined after 21 Davs
TRADING LLC; SF CRASHPAD [after Expiration of Safe Harbor Periodl
21 LLC; SF CRASHPADZ LLC; SFC Time: 9:30AM
CRA'SHPAD LLC; SFO CRASHPAD
22 LLC; DC CRASHPAD, LLC;
Dept. 501
COREY A. TEAGUE; Judge: Hon. Charles Haines
23 RYAN JAMES PATTERSON; Estimated Time required; 15 minutes
JENNIFER EUNJIN CHOI;
24, TINA T, TAM;WILLIAM J. Trial Date: Not yet set
MICHAEL J.
25 COAXER;
BOROVINA JR.; and DOES 1
26 through 100,
27 Defendants

1
PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATION RE. MEET & CONFER FOR MOT1ON FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
DECLARATION OF PHUONG T. NGUYKN

I, Phuong T. Nguyen, make this declaration based on personal knowledge.

I declare as follows: I make this declaration based on personal knowledge and if called to testify,
I
8
could testify to the same.
9
MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT WAS SATISFIED
10
On August 24, 2023, I telephoned and emailed the attorney for Defendants, London Breed, The San

12 Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Paul Myamoto, Tins Tam, Michael Boravina a message to

Constitute A Meet and Confer concerning possible sanctions,
14
Additionally, on August 24, 2023, I emailed them with a copy of the foregoing Proposed Motion,
16
I also admonished defendants'ttorney, Natassia Kwan by stating unless they stipulate to
16

17 ask the court to Comply with CRC Rule 3 13 1 2, as to the court' ruling of April 14 2023,

Is concerning defendants'equirement to prepare a proposed Order as to the hearing on
Defendants'emurrer
to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, based on defendants being the prevailing party on
20
Defendants'emurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint
21
Yet, Defendants have failed and refused to comply.
22

23
Thereafter, I requested that Defendants file a Notice of Withdrawal, and proposed Stipulation

And Order for the Court to vacate the prior rulings on Defendants Demurrer as to the original

Complaint, Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint within 21 Days.

[See Part II of Declaration on Next Page]
27

2
PLAINTIFF'S DECIARATION RE. MEET & CONFER FOR MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
FACTS IPart II of Declarationg

I, Phuong T. Nguyen further declare [as continuation of above],

On September 20, 2021, the court ruled as follows on, Defendants'emurrer,
but Defendants and their attorney refused and failed to prepare and submit a proposed
order to the court thereafter:
COURT' RULING FROM 09/20/2021

REAL PROPERTY/HOUSING MOTION 501, DE~R TO AMENDED COMPLAINT IS
SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART.

9 DE~R IS'USTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMKNly AS TO THK 14TH CAUSE OF
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF EACH ELEMENT OF THIS
ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF TO ALLEGE
10
CAUSE OF ACTION AND TO ALLEGE FACTS SHOWING THAT THE CITY EMPLOYEES
11 ARE NOT SUB JECT TO IMMUNITY. DEMURRER TO THE 6TH CAUSE OF ACTION IS
OVERRULED. DEFENDANTS CITE NO AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT
12 ,TEMPORARY RESTING ORDER/PRELIMINARY INIUNCTION IS LIMITED TO CIVIL
13 HARASSMENT CASES DESCRIBED IN THE MOVING PAPERS (" CONFIDENTIAL CLETS
FORMS, PETITIO'N FOR TRO").
14

15
DE~R TO CAUSES OF ACTION 1,5 AND 7-13 IS OVE'RRULED.

'EFENDANT CHALLENGES THE VERACITY OF PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
REGARDING CLAMS SUBMISSION AND ASKS THE COURT TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE
PRESENTED IN A DECLARATION ON A DEMURRER. JUDGE: CHARLES F. HARPS,
CLERK: N, WONG, NOT REPORTED, (D501)
18
On April 14, 2023, the court ruled as follows on Defendants'emurrer to the First Amended
19
complaint, but Defendants and their attorney refused and failed to prepare snd submit a proposed
20
order to the court thereafter:
COURT' RULING FROM APRIL 14. 2023
Case Number: CGC21591803

Case Title: PHUONG T. NGUYEN VS. LONDON BREED ET AL
24 APR-14-2023 09.30 AM
Court Date:
25 Calendar Matter': DE~R to Amended COMPLAINT
Rulings: Real Properly/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for April 14, 2023
27 line 3. DEFENDANT LONDON BREED, THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES
28 COMMISSION, PAUL MIYAMOTO, TINA TAM, MICHAEL BOROVINA to 1ST DE~R
3
PLAINTIFF' DECLARATION RE. MEET & CONFER FOR MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
overruled in part.
Amended COMPLAINT is OFF CALENDAR in part, sustained in part and
and the San
Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint filed by London Breed, Paul Miyamoto
ruled on the merits of
Francisco Utilines Commission is OFF CALENDAR. The Court has heard and
notes that parties failed
the demurrer brought by these defendants on September 20, 2021. The Court
Court orders that
to provide a proposed Order to the Court for execution after hearing. Therefore, the
the prior demurrer,.must present an order in conformity with
'I these Defendants, the moving parties on
4
.

5 the tentative ruling adopted by the Court as its final ruling on September 20, 2021. The Court further
notes that The San'Francisco Utilities Commission has previously generally appeared in this action,
Demurrer by Tina Tam and Michael Borovina is sustained in part and overruled in part. Demurrer is
sustained with leave to amend as to the 14th cause of action for Plaintiff to allege facts in support of
7
each element of this cause of action and to allege facts showing that the city employees are not
8 subject to immunity. Demurrer to the 6th cause of action is overruled. Defendants claim that this
cause of action is moot because the tenants have been evicted on June 30, 2021 a month after this
9
action was filed (May 25, 2021), Defendant fails to identify where in the operative complaint an
IO allegation is made regarding June 30, 2021 eviction. Defendant further claims that complaint fails to
explain what wrongful conduct is to be enjoined. A careful reading of the complaint puts the
defendants on notice of such wrongful conduct. Demurrer to causes of action 1,5 and 7-13 is
overruled. Defendant challenges the veracity of Plaintiff s allegations regarding claims submission
and asked the Court to consider evidence presented in a declaration on a demurrer. To the extent
defendants seek judicial notice of such declaration, the Court grants. judicial notice of the existence of
in-person, telephonically or
l4 such declaration, but not of its contents. =(501(CFH) Parties may appear
via Zoom (Video Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or
- Phone Dial in; (551) 285-1373;
Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849). Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give
notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4;00 p.m, the court day before the
hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting a
17 tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to
Department501Contest TR sftc. org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the
portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at the hearing if the
opposing party is not so notified, and the opposing party does not appear.
20 On August 7, 2023, the following ruling was made by the court as to Defendants'emurrer
21 to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint:
22 REAL PROPERTY/HOUSING MOTION 501, DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT IS
CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 15, 2023.
23
NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 1, 2023 THE MOVING PARTY TO SUBMIT A
24 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF NOT TO EXCEED 3 PAGES PROVIDING AUTHORITY FOR THE
ASSERTED "SPECIAL APPEARANCES" OF THE DE~ANTS WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY
25
GENERALLY APPEARED (PUC FILED A DE~R
TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT)
26 AND WHO HAVE OBTAINED SUBSTANTIVE RELIEF ON THE MERITS AS TO THE
27
SUFFICIENCY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ON THEIR DE~R
TO THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ARE SEEKING SUBSTANTIVE RELIEF ON THE MERITS AS
28 TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (PUC, TEAGUE, CHOI, TAM AND BOROVINA).

4
PIAINTIFF'S DEClARATION RE. MEET 4 CONFER FOR MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
MOVING PARTY IS ORDERED AGAIN TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED ORDER ON THE
, DE~R TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2021,
.MOVING PARTY SHALL COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN APRIL 18,
2023 REJECTION LETTER AND SUBMIT A DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE ALONG
WITH A PROPOSED ORDER NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 1, 2023, MOVING PARTY
SHALL ALSO SUBMIT A PROPOSED ORDER ON THE DEMURER TO THE FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT HEARD ON APRIL 14, 2023 IN COMPLIANCE WITH
INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN APRIL 18, 2023 REJECTION LETTER. A DECLARATION OF
COMPI.IANCE AND PROPOSED ORDER MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT NO LATER
THAN SEPTEMBER I, 2023" JUDGE: CHARLES R HAnKS; CLERK: L YOUNG; NOT
7
REPORTED. (D501)
8
On Sept. 20, 2021, April 14, 2023, and August.7, 2023, Defendants sought the same relief
9
by filing multiple demurrers to the same causes of action which the court had previously
10
overruled. Defendants'emurrer as to all causes of action were overruled on the Demurrer
11
to the Original Complaint, except for as to the 14'" Cause of Action,
Yet, Defendants filed a demurrers to the First Amended Complaint and to the Second Amended

Complaint on the same premises as the court had already previously overruled on Sept, 20, 2021
14
And on April 14, 2023.
15
Even worse, defendants and their lawyer intentionally failed to prepare and submit a proposed
16
Order to the Court as to each demurrer, to attempt to reEle for the same relief, in which
Is a VIOLATION OF CCP ii 1008[B].
18
To repeatedly seek the same relief which was previously
19
Denied is grounds for the court to impose'sanctions under,
CCP tl 1008[d].
21
All of the referenced Rule violations are grounds for sanctions per
22
Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.30.
23
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true
24
and correct, except for statements based on information snd belief, which I believe to be true.
25
Dated: August 23, 2023

27 By P4uvnc X -h]uarAtzev
28 Phuong T. Nguyen

5
PLAINTIFF'8 DECIARATION RE. MEET & CONFER FOR MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
TABLE OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT "A" - Pending Motion for Sanctions

EXHIBIT "8 - CRC, RULE 3.1312

EXHIBIT "C" - Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. g 1008th]

EXHIBIT "0" - Tentative Ruling from OS/20/2021
On Demurer to Orig. Complaint

E -
EXHIBIT CCW &0
Court's Tentative Ruling from 04/14/2023
on Demurrer to 1" Amended Complaint
EXHIBIT "A"
Copy of Notice of Motion and Motion for
Order Imposing Sanctions to be filed in 21 Days
Phuong T. Nguyen By Fax
P.O. Box 585
Brisbane, CA 94005
(650)228-6880
Plaintiff, pro se

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THK COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO — Civil Unlimited Jurisdiction

PHUONG T. NGUYEN, Case No.'CGC-21-591803

Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF PHUONG T. NGUYKN'S
10 NOTICE OF MOTION AND
vs. MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING
11 SANCTIONS AND FOR AN AWARD OF
LONDON BREED; PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST
MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO; DEFENDANTS LONDON BREEDS THK SAN
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO;
PG k E Corporation„'acific Gas FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIKS
and Electric Company, a Corporation; COMMISSION, PA UL MIYAMOTO,
14 TINA TAM, MICHAEL BOROVINA
RECOLOGY EAST BAY, a
Is Corporation; Recology Sunset AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD,
Scavenger, a business form unknown; NATASSIAKWAN;
Is SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC MEMORANDUM OF
UTITLITIES COMMISSION; PAUL POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; AND
M. MIYAMOTO aka San Francisco DECLARATION OF PHUONG T, NGUYEN
County Sheriff; Zameer Riaz Azam;
Abdul Azam; Jason Paul Voelker; "Telephone Appearance"
S~
Juan S. Ruiz aka Juan Salvador Ruiz;
JAIN; CRASHPAD LLC;
CRASHPADZ INC '„EXCALIBUR
Date: To Be Determined after 21 Davs
TRADING LLC; SF CRASHPAD
LLC; SF CRASHPADZ LLC; SFC [after Expiration of Safe Harbor Periodj
CRASHPAD LLC; SFQ CRASHPAD Time: 9:30AM
22 LLC; DC CRASHPAD, LLC; Dept. 501
COREY A. TEAGUE; Judge: Hon. Charles Haines
RYANJAMESPATTERSON; Estimated Time required: 15 minutes
JENNIFER EUNJIN CHOI;
TINA T. TAMi WILLIAM J. Trial Date: Not yet set
COAKER; MICHAEL J.
BOROVINA JR.; and DOES 1
through 100,

Defendants
28

1
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:

6 PLEASE TAKE NOTICK THAT on TBD, 2023 |Hearing] at 9:30AM or as soon

thereafter as the matter may be heard in Law & Motion Department, or in

Denartment" 501 " at Superior Court of California, located at San Francisco Silperior Court,
8

I
9
located at 400 McAllister Street. San Francisco. California,
10

11. Plaintiff Phuong Nguyen will, and hereby moves
the Court for an order IMPOSING SANCTIONS and for an Award of Punitive Damages

against DEFENDANTS LONDON BREED, THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES

COMMISSION, PAUL MIYAMOTO, TINA TAM, MICHAEL BOROVINA AND THEIR
15
ATTORNEY OF RECORD, NATASSIA KWAN.
16
The Motion for Sanctions will be based on the followinir arounds:
17

The motion and alternative motion are based on this notice of motion, the "concurrently

filede Declaration of Phoung Nguyen and/or the affidavit of Phuong Nguyen,
20
the attached supporting memorandum, supporting declaration, the papers, records,
21
and file herein, and such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion.
22
Dated: August 22, 2023
23

24 By: PAAAA9AAAb 2NctAAAtARAV
Phuong T. Nguyen, Plaintiff Pro se

26
27

2
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIKS

2 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Defendants London. Breed, The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,
Paul Myamoto, Tina Tam, Michael Boravina and lawyer of record;
Natassia Kwan violated multiple CCP and CRC Rules.
On September 20, 2021, the court ruled as follows on Defendants'emurrer,
but Defendants and their attorney refused and failed to prepare and submit a proposed
order to the court thereafter:
COURT' RULING FROM 09/20/2021
10 REAL PROPERTY/HOUSING MOTION 501„DE~R TO AMENDED COMPLAINT IS
11 SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART.

12 DE~R IS SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO THK 14TH CAUSE OF
ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF TO ALLEGE FACTS IN SUPPORT OF EACH ELEMENT OF THIS
13 CAUSE OF ACTION AND TO ALLEGE FACTS SHOWING THAT THE CITY EMPLOYEES
14
ARE NOT SUBJECT TO IMIVIUNITY. DE~R
TO THE 6TH CAUSE OF ACTION IS
OVERRULED. DEFENDANTS CITE NO AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT
15 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER/PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS LIMITED TO CIVIL
HARASSMENT CASES DESCRIBED IN THE MOVING PAPERS (" CONFIDENTIAL CLETS
16
FORMS, PETITION FOR TRO"),
17
DEMIJRRER TO CAUSES OF ACTION 1,5 AND 7-13 IS OVERRULED.
18
DEFENDANT CHALLENGES THE VERACITY OF PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS
19 REGARDING CLAMS SUBMISSION AND ASKS THE COURT TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE

20
PRESENTED IN A DECLARATION ON A DE~R.
JUDGE: CHARLES F. HAPKS,
CLERK: N. WONG, NOT REPORTED. (D501)
21 On April 14, 2023, the court ruled as follows on Defendants'emurrer to the First Amended
.22 complaint, but Defendants and their attorney refused and failed to'prepare and submit a proposed
23 order to the court thereafter:
COURT' RULING FROM APRIL 14. 2023
25 Case Number: CGC21591803
26 Case Title; PHUONG T. NGIjYEN VS. LONDON BREED ET AL
27 Court Date: APR-14-2023 09:30 AM
28 Calendar Matter: DE~R to Amended COMPLAINT
3
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
Rulings Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for April 14, 2023
UTILITIES
line 3. DEFENDANT LONDON BREED, THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
COMMISSION, PAUL MIYAMOTO, TINA TAM, MICHAEL BOROVINA
DE~R to I ST
overruled in part.
Amended COMPLAINT is OFF CALENDAR in part, sustained in part and
and the San
Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint filed by London Breed, Paul Miyamoto
on the merits of
Francisco Utilities Commission is OFF CALENDAR. The Court has heard and ruled
that parties failed
the demurrer brought by these defendants on September 20, 2021. The Court notes
Court orders that
to provide a proposed Order to the Court for execution after hearing. Therefore, the
conformity with
these Defendants, the moving parties on the prior demurrer, must present an order in
Court further
the 'tentative ruling adopted by the Court as its final ruling on September 20, 2021. The
action,
notes that The San Francisco Utilities Commission has previously generally appeared this in
Demur'rer is
Demurrer by Tins Tam and Michael Borovina is sustained in part and overruled in part.
9 sustained with leave to amend as to the 14th cause of action for Plaintiff to allege facts in support
of
each element of this cause of action and to allege facts showing that the city employees are not
10 that this
subject to immunity. Demurrer to the 6th cause of action is overruled. Defendants claim
cause of action is moot because the tenants have been evicted on June 30, 2021 a
month after this
action was filed (May 25, 2021). Defendant fails to identify where in the operative complaint
an
that complaint fails to
12 allegation is made regarding June 30, 2021 eviction. Defendant further claims
explain what wrongful conduct is to be enj oined. A careful reading of the complaint puts the
defendants on notice of such wrongful conduct. Demurrer to causes of action 1,5 and 7-13 is
overruled. Defendant challenges the veracity of Plaintiff s allegations regarding claiins submission
and asked the Court to consider evidence presented in a declaration on a demurrer, To the extent
defendants seek judicial notice of such declaration, the Court grants judicial notice of the existence of
or
such declaration,.but not of its contents. =(501/CFH) Parties may appear in-person, telephonically
285-1 373
via Zoom (Video-Webinar ID: 1 60 560 5023; Password: 1 72849; or Phone Dial in: (55 1 )
%ebinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849), Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give
the
19 notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before
hearing unless the'entative ruling has speci6ed that a hearing is required. Notice of contesting
a
19
tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to
20 Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the
the hearing if the
portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. A party may not argue at
opposing party is not so notified, and the opposing party does not appear,

23 On August /, 2023, the following ruling was made by the court as to Defendants'emurrer
24 to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint:
25 REAL PROPERTY/HOUSING MOTION 501, DE~R TO AMENDED COMPLAINT IS
26 CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 15, 2023,
SUBMIT A
'7 NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 1, 2023 THE MOVING PARTY TO
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF NOT TO EXCEED 3 PAGES PROVIDING
AUTHORITY FOR THE
HAVE PREVIOUSLY
28 ASSERTED "SPECIAL APPEARANCES" OF THE DEFENDANTS WHO

4
'PIAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING. SANCTIONS
GENERALLY APPEARED (PUC FILED A DE~R
TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT)
AND WHO HAVE OBTAINED SUBSTANTIVE RELIEF ON THE MERITS AS TO THE
SUFFICIENCY OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ON THEIR DEMURRER TO THE FIRST
3 AMENDED COMPLAINT AND ARE SEEKiNG SUBSTANTIVE RELIEF ON THE MEIUTS AS
TO THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (PUC, TEAGUE, CHOI, TAM AND BOROVINA).
MOVING PARTY IS ORDERED AGAIN TO'SUBMIT A PROPOSED ORDER. ON THE
DE~R TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2021.
MOVING PARTY SHALL COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED, IN APRIL 18,
2023 RE JECTIO'N LETTER AND SUBMIT A DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE ALONG
WITH A PROPOSED ORDER NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 1, 2023. MOVING PARTY
SHALL ALSO SUBMIT A PROPOSED ORDER ON THE DEMURRER TO THE FJRST
s AMENDED COMPLAINT HEARD ON APRIL 14, 2023'IN COMPLIANCE WITH
INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN APRIL 18, 2023 REJECTION LETTER. A DECLARATION OF
COMPLIANCE AND PROPOSED ORDER MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT NO LATER
Io THAN SEPTEMBER 1, 2023. JUDGE: CHARLES F, HAINES; CLERK: L, YOUNG; NOT
REPORTED. (D501)
11
On Sept. 2Q, 2021, April 14, 2023, and August 7, 2023, Defendants sought the same relief
12
by filing multiple.demurrers to the same causes of action which the court had previously
13
overruled, Defendants'emurrer as to all causes of action were overruled on the Demurrer
14
to the Original Complaint, except for as to the 14+ Cause of Action.
15
Yet, Defendants filed a demurrers to the First Amended Complaint and to the Second Amended
16
C'omplaint on tlie same premises as the court had already previously overruled on Sept. 20, 2021
17
'nd on April 14, 2023.
18
Even worse, defendants and their lawyer intentionally failed to prepare and submit a proposed
19
Order,to tbe Court as to each demurrer, to attempt to refile for the same relief, in which
20
Is a VIOLATION OF CCP g 1008[Bi.
21
To repeatedly seek the same relief which was previously
22
Denied is grounds for the court to impose sanctions under,
23
CCP [l 10Q8[d[.
24'll of the below-referenced Rule violations are grounds for sanctions per
25
Cal. Rul'es of Court, Rule 2.30.
26
27

28 ////////

5
PDAINTIFFc S MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
II. CALIFORNIA RULES OF THE COURT, RULE.3.1312
STATES THAT THE PREVAILING PARTY AS TO ANY MOTION OR DE~R
MUST SUBMIT A PROPOSED ORDER TO THE COURT.

Rule 3.1312. Preparation and submission of proposed order

(a) Prevailing party to prepare
6
Unless the parties waive notice or the court orders otherwise, the party prevailing on any motion
7 must, within five days of the ruling, serve by any means authorized by law and reasonably calculated
to ensure delivery to the other party or parties no later than the close of the next. business day a
proposed order for approval as conforming to the court's order. Within five days after service, the
other party or parties must notify the prevailing party as to whether or not the proposed order is so
9
approved. The opposing party or parties must state any reasons for disapproval. Failure to notify the
Ip prevailing party within the time required shall be deemed an approval. The extensions of time based
on a method of service provided under any statute or rule do not apply to this rule.
11
(Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2011; previously amended effective July I, 2000, and January
12
1, 2007.)
13
(b) Submission of proposed order to court
14

15 The prevailing party must. unon exoiration of the five-dav oeriod provided for approval, promptly
transmit the proposed order to the court together with a summary of any responses of the other parties
16 or a statement that no responses were received.

(Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007; previously amended effective July 1, 2000.)
18

19 'f
(c) Submission of proposed order by electronic means

a proposed order is submitted to the court electronically in a case in which the parties are
electronically filing documents under rules 2.250-2.261, two versions of the proposed order must be
2'1 submitted:,

22 (1) A version of the proposed order must be attached to a completed Proposed Order (Cover Sheet)
(form EFS-020), and the combined document in Portable Document Format (PDF) must be filed
electronically; and
24
(2) A version of the proposed order in an editable word-processing format must also be sent
25 electronically to the court, with a copy of the e-mail and proposed order also being sent to all parties
in the action.
26
27 Each court that provides for electromc tiling must provide an electronic address or addresses to which
the editable versions of proposed orders are to be sent and must specify any particular requirements
28 regarding the editable word-processing format for proposed orders.

6
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
1
(Subd (c) adopted effective January 1, 2011.)
2

3 (d) Failure of prevailing party to prepare proposed order

If the prevailing party fails to prepare and submit a proposed order as required by (a) and (b) above,
any other party may do so,
5

6
(Subd (d) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2011; adopted as subd (c); previously amended
effective July 1, 2000.)
7
III. ANY LITIGANT OR ATTORNEY FOR A LITIGANT WHO REFUSES AND FAILS
8 TO COMPLY WITH RULES OF THK COURT AND CODES OF CIVIL PROCEDURES
IS SUBJECT TO BK SANCTIONED BY THK COURT.
8

Rule 2.30. Sanctions for rules violations in civil cases

(a) Application

This sanctions rule applies to the rules in the California Rules of Court relating to general civil cases,
unlawful detainer cases, probate proceedings, civil proceedings in the appellate, division of the
superior court, and small claims cases.

(Subd (a) amended effective January 1„2004; adopted effective July 1, 2001.)
15 /
16 (b) Sanctions

17 In addition to any other sanctions permitted by law, the court may order a person, after writtett
notice and an opportunity to be heard, to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the court or an
18
aggrieved person, or both, for failure without eood cause to comnlv with the annlicable rules, For
the purposes of this rule, "person 'eans 8, party, a party's attorney, a witness, and an insurer or any
other individual or entity whose consent is necessary for the disposition of the case. If a failure to
20 comply with an applicable tule is the responsibility of counsel and not of the party, any penalty niust
be imposed on counsel and must not adversely affect the party'. cause of action or defense thereto.
21

22 (Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted as untitled subdivision effective January 1, .

1985; amended and relettered effective July 1, 2001; previously amended effective January 1, 1994,
23 and January 1, 2004,)

(c) Notice and procedure
25
Sanctions must not be imposed under this rule except on noticed motion by the party seeking
26 sanctions or on the court's own motion after the court has provided notice and an opportunity to be
heard. A party's motion for sanctions must (1) state the applicable rule that has been violated, (2)
27 describe the specific conduct that is alleged to have violated the rule, and (3) identify the attorney,
'28 law firm, party, witness, or other person against whom sanctions are sought. The court on its own

7
PLAINTIFF'8 MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
1 motion may issue an order to show cause that must (1) state the applicable rule that has been
violated, (2) describe the specific conduct that appears to have violated the rule, and (3) direct the
2 attorney, law firm, party, witness, or other person to show cause why sanctions should not be
imposed against them for violation of the rule.
3

4 (Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2007, adopted effective July I, 2001; previously amended
effective January 1, 2004,)
5

6
(d) Award of expenses

In addition to the sanctions awardable under (b), the court may order the person who has violated an
applicable rule to pay to the party aggrieved by the violation that party's reasonable expenses,
including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, incurred in connection with the motion for sanctions or
the order to show cause.

10 (Subd (d) amended effective January 1, 2007, adopted effective July I, 2001; previously amended
effective January 1, 2004.)

12
(e) Order

13 An order imposing sanctions must be in writing and must recite in detail the conduct or
circumstances justifying the order.
]4
IV. IT'. S ILLEGAL FOR A LITIGANT TO REPEATEDLY SEEK THE SAME RELIEF
15
BY ATTEMPTING TO
HAD PREVIOUSLY OVERRULED.
DE~R CAUSES OF ACTION FOR WHICH THE COURT
16

See CCP lt 1008 [b]
18
1008.
19 (a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or
in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within
20 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or
different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the
21 order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order, The party making the
22 application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when snd to what judge, what
order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law're claimed to
23 be shown.

(b) A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or
granted conditionally or on terms, 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
26 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. For a failure to comply with this
27 subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte
28
motion.

8
PIAINTIFF'8 MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
1
(c) If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider
a prior order it entered„ it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.
r
3
(d) A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by
Section 128.7. In addition, an order made contrary to this section may be revoked by the judge or
commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge of the court in which the action or proceeding is
pending.

IV. A LITIGANT VIOLATING CCP jj 1008+] BY REPEATEDLY SEEKING THE SAME
, RELIEF IS SANCTIONABLE, PER CCP 5 1008|D].

8 1008.
9
'a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or
in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within
10 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or
different 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 to what judge, what
12
order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to
13 be shown.

(b) A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or part, or
granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new
15
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 new or
different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with this
subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on ex parte
motion.
18

19 (c) If a court at any time determines that there has been a change of law that warrants it to reconsider
a prior order it entered, it may do so on its own motion and enter a different order.
20

21 (d) A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions
as allowed by Section 128.7. In addition, an order made contrary to this section may be revoked
22 by the judge or commissioner who made it, or vacated by a judge of the court in which the action or
proceeding is pending.
23
V. THIS COURT SHOULD AWARD EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND
PIINITIVK DAMAGES] TO "PLAINTIFF" AGAINST
DEFENDANT AND HIS TTORNEY OF RECORD " UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
SECTION 128.5 and 128.7 AS A SANCTION FOR BAD FAITH ACTIONS AND TACTICS
26 T'HAT WERE FRIVOLOUS AND FRAUDULENT and/or SOLELY INTENDED TO CAUSE
27 UNNECESSARY DELAY.

28 See CCP P'$128.5 & 128.7

9
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
1
Here, Phuong Nguyen is acting in pro per.
2
However, the work that she did in this case, is well-worth an equivalent to 7 hours of Typing

4 and research Labor

A reasonable rate for her work would be $ 125 per hour
6
So, $ 125 per hour X 7 hours = $ $ 75
7
Therefore, Plaintiff should recoup at least $ 875 from defendants
8

and Defendants'ttornev. Dlus Dunitive damaaes as a deterrent to dissuade them from

10 further refusal and failure to follow rules court an Codes of Civil Procedure.

VI. Statutory Authority to Award Monetary Sanctions Consisting of Reasonable Expenses,
Including Attorney's Fees.

Every trial court may order a party, the party's attorney, or both, to pay any

reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by another party as a re'suit
15
of bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause

unnecessary delay (Code Civ. Proc, P 128.5; 580 Folsom Associates v.

Prometheus Development Co. (1990) 223 CaL App 3d 1, 19-28, 272 Cal. Rptr. 227
18

18 VH. "Actions or Tactics" Defined

20 Actions or t'actics include, but are not limited to, the making or opposing of motions
21
or the filing and service of a complaint or cross complaint, but only if the actions or
22
, tactics arise from a complaint filed, or a proceeding initiated,. on or before
23
Deceinber 31, 1994 (Code Civ. Proc. t't'128.5(b)(l); see,A/bion River 8'atershed

25 Protection Assn. v. Department ofForestrr ck Fire Protection (1993) 20 Cal. App.

4th 34, 37-38, 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 341

10
PLAINTIFF'8 MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
VIII. "Frivolous" Defined.

Frivolous means (I) totally and completely without merit, or (2) for the sole

purpose of harassing an opposing party (Code Civ. Proc. g IZ8.5(b)(Z); Bank of

America v, Henkin (1986) 185 Cal. App. 3d 919, 9Z2, 230 Cal. Rptr..113 ).

VI. Sanctions May Be Awarded in Favor of Pro Se Litigant

Sanctions.may be awarded under Code of Civil Procedure Section 128,5 in favor of

both a self-representing attorney and 'a non-attorney pro se litigant ( Abandonato

v. Coldren (1995) 41 Cal. App. 4th 264, 269, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 429).
IX. Sanctions May Be Awarded in Favor of Pro Se Litigant
11
In Abandonato v. Coldren (1995) 41 Cal. App. 4th 264, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 429, pro se
12
attorneys demurred to a complaint and moved for an award of attorney fees pursuant to Code
13
Civ Proc. g 128.5. The plaintiff dismissed the complaint before the demurrer could be heard.

The trial court proceeded with the hearing for sanctions, and made an award on the ground

that the complaint was filed in bad faith and plaintiff s tactics were fiivolous. Plaintiff
17
contended that defendants could not be awarded attorney fees because they were attorneys
18
representing themselves and thus neither paid, nor incurred any liability to pay, attorney fees
19
The court of appeal reasoned that sanctions under Code Civ Proc. g 128.5 are not limited to
20
court costs and attorney fees, but include those reasonable expenses directly related to and in

22 furtherance of the litigation. Furthermore, a judgment for sanctions could be greater than the

amount of attorney time actually billed since it is more like a money judgment compensating
24
a party for harmful conduct than it is like an award of fees as part of the costs of the lawsuit (
25
41 Cal. App. 4th Z64, 268-269) . The court concluded that sanctions may be awarded under
26

27 Code Civ Proc. g 128.5 in favor of both a self-representing attorney and a non-attorney pro se

28 litigant. Accordingly, the order awarding attorney fees was affirmed.

11
PLAINTIFF' NOTION FOR ORDER INPOSING SANCTIONS
X. DEFENDANT and counsel filed Presented Papers I'or Improper Purpose.
2

3
By presenting to the court a pleading, petition, written notice of motion, or other similar

paper, counsel or an unrepresented party is certifying that the paper is not being presented

primarily for. an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly
6
increase the cost of litigation (Code Civ, Proc tt'128.7(h)(1)). If 8 paper is presented
7
primarily for an improper purpose in violation of Code of Civil Procedure Section
8

128. 7(b)(1), the attorney or party presenting the paper may be subject to sanctions (see Code
9

Civ. Proc. 6128.7fch ldll.

Here, Plaintiff provided Defendant and Defendant' Lawyer with an opportunity to

Correct their rul'e and CCP violations,
13
Defendant and Defendant's Attorney was served with a copy of the proposed Motion for Sanctions
14
and given 21 Days to correct their CRC rule and CCP violations.
15

16 XI. CONCLUSION

17 Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court impose Sanctions against

Defendant London Breed, The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Paul Myamoto,
19
Tins Tam, Michael Boravina and their lawyer of record, Watassia Kwan for the aforesaid reasons.
20
Accordingly, it is in the best interest of justice, that the court impose sanctions on
21
Defendant London Breed, The San Firancisco Public Utilities Commission, Paul Myamoto,

23 'ina Tam, Michael Boravina and lawyer of record, Natassia Kwan
24 and awardpunitive damages iu the amount of $72,000 to P/ointtff
25
Dated: August 23, 2023
26
By P4l4~ T. NQAAttt~
Phuong T. Nguyen, Plaintiff
28

12
PLAINTIFFiS MOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
See attached Declaration of Phuong T. Nguyen

13
PIAINTIFF'S NOTION FOR ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS
2 DKCLARATION OF PHUONG T. NGUVKN
3
I, Phuong T. Nguyen, make this declaration based on personal, knowledge.

I declare as follows:
5
I make this declaration based on personal knowledge and if called to testify, I could testify
6

to the same,

8 MKKT AND CONFER REQUIREMENT WAS SATISFIED
9
On August 23, 2023, I telephoned and emailed the attorney for Defendants, London Breed, The San
10
Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Paul Myamoto, Tins Tam, Michael Boravina a message to
11
Constitute A Meet and Confer concerning possible sanctions.
12
Additionally, on August 23, 2023, I emailed them with a copy of the foregoing Proposed Motioh,

14 I also admonished defendants'ttorney, Natassia Kwan by stating unless they stipulate to

ask the court to Comply with CRC, Rule 3.1312, as to the court's ruling of April 14, 2023,
16

18.
Defendants'7
concerning defendants'equirement to prepare a proposed Order as to the hearing on

Demurrer to Plaintiff' First Amended Complaint, ba

Case Info

Judge

Charles F. Haines Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 25, 2023

Case Filing Date

May 25, 2021

County

Parties

AZAM, ABDUL Defendant
AZAM, ZAMEER RIAZ Defendant
BERGER, CHASKA Defendant
BOROVINA, MICHAEL Defendant
BREED, LONDON Defendant
CHOI, JENNIFER EUNJIN Defendant
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Defendant
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO Defendant
COAKER, WILLIAM J. Defendant
CRASHPADZ INC Defendant
DC CRASHPAD, LLC Defendant
DOES 1 THROUGH 100 Defendant
EXCALIBUR TRADING LLC Defendant
FREEDMAN, SCOTT Attorneys for Defendants
FREEDMAN, SCOTT Attorney for the Defendant
GUAIUMI, JIM Defendant
GUY, KEVIN Defendant
JAIN, SHARAD Defendant
KRAUS, JAMES B Attorneys for Defendants
KRAUS, JAMES B Attorney for the Defendant
KWAN, NATASSIA Attorney for the Defendant
MASRY, OMAR M Defendant
MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO Defendant
MIYAMOTO, PAUL M. Defendant
NGUYEN, PHUONG T. P.O. BOX Appellant
NGUYEN, PHUONG T. P.O. BOX Plaintiff
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Defendant
PATTERSON, RYAN JAMES Respondent
PG & E CORPORATION Defendant
Pro Per Attorney for the Plaintiff
RAHAIM, JOHN Defendant
RECOLOGY EAST BAY Defendant
RECOLOGY SUNSET SCAVENGER Defendant
RUIZ, JUAN S. Defendant
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Defendant
SFC CRASHPAD LLC Defendant
SF CRASHPADZ LLC Defendant
SFO CRASHPAD LLC Defendant
TAM, TINA T. Defendant
TEAGUE, COREY Defendant
TEAGUE, CORY A. Defendant
THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Defendant
VOELKER, JASON PAUL Defendant
WIENER, AARON I Attorney for the Defendant
David Chiu Attorneys for Defendants
Mark Chernev Attorney
Scott Friedman Attorneys for Defendants
Laura Strazzo Attorneys for Defendants
Emily Brough Attorneys for Defendants
Dennis Herrera Attorneys for Defendants
Meredith Osborn Attorneys for Defendants
James Finch Attorneys for Defendants
William Lynn Attorney

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

Order: PHUONG T. NGUYEN VS. LONDON BREED ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties