Motion for Temporary Restraining Order in ANGIE MILON VS. JOHN MUNGUIA ET AL| Trellis.Law

On June 16, 2023 a Order to Show Cause was filed involving a dispute between Milon, Angie, Munguia, John, and Does 1 To 20, Munguia, John, Riedel, Dorothy, Trad'R Sam, A California Partnership, for CONTRACT/WARRANTY in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
1 Trevor B. McCann (State Bar No. 243724)
Ryan P. Harley (State Bar No. 245059)
2 COLLINS + COLLINS LLP
3 2175 N California Boulevard, Suite 835 ELECTRONICALLY
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 FILED
4 (510) 844-5100 – FAX (510) 844-5101 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
Email: tmccann@ccllp.law
5 Email: rharley@ccllp.law 06/27/2023
Clerk of the Court
6
BY: EDWARD SANTOS
Attorneys for DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT Deputy Clerk

7 JOHN MUNGUIA

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

10 MILON, CASE NO. CGC-23-607068

11 Plaintiff, Complaint filed: June 16, 2023
Cross-complaint filed: June 26, 2023
12 vs. Trial Date: Not Set
13
MUNGUIA, et al. DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT JOHN
14 MUNGUIA’S NOTICE OF EX PARTE
Defendants, APPLICATION AND AMENDED APPLICATION
15 FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE;
16
MEMORANDUM; DECLARATION OF JOHN
17 MUNGUIA; DECLARATION OF TREVOR
MCCANN;
18
[Proposed] ORDER lodged herewith.
19 And related action.
Date: June 28, 2023
20
Time: 11:00 a.m.
21 Dept.: 302

28
23433
2175 N California Boulevard 1
Suite 835
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone (510) 844-5100
AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Fax (510) 844-5101
1 TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT, THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 28, 2023 at 11:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
3 matter may be heard in Department 302 of the above-entitled court, located at 400 McAllister
4 Street, San Francisco, California, Defendant/Cross-complainant John Munguia (“Munguia”) will
5 and hereby does make an ex parte Application for: (1) a Temporary Restraining Order; and (2) an
6 Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction in the form of the [Proposed] Order attached
7 hereto.
8 Munguia seeks immediate relief because, before the matter can be fully heard and
9 adjudicated, he will sustain immediate and irreparable injury, loss, and damages if Plaintiff Angie
10 Milon (“Milon”) is allowed to continue to manage and operate Trad’r Sam, a California general
11 partnership (“Trad’r Sam”) despite obvious conflicts of interests.
12 Munguia supports this Application through specific facts recited in the attached
13 Memorandum of Points and Authorities and the declaration of Trevor McCann submitted
14 herewith. Munguia is likely to succeed on the merits by showing that:
15 (1) Milon is Trad’r Sam’s de facto manager under authority granted to her by Riedel
16 (Milon’s mother) through a written power of attorney to manage Riedel’s affairs with respect to
17 Trad’r Sam;
18 (2) Since August 2020, Riedel and Milon have been using Trad’r Sam as their personal
19 piggy bank, taking more than $200,000 to pay their personal attorneys’ fees in a related litigation.
20 (3) On June 16, 2023, Milon, in her individual capacity, sued Riedel, Munguia, and
21 Trad’r Sam for alleged breach of contract and monetary damages related to work she performed

22 for Trad’r Sam;

23 (4) Munguia will sustain immediate and irreparable if Riedel and Milon and are not

24 restrained from these acts; and

25 (5) The harm to Munguia of denying the requested relief outweighs any harm to Riedel.

26 Munguia requests that the Court temporarily restrain and enjoin Riedel and each of her

27 agents (including Milon), servants, employees, successors, and assigns and all persons in active

28
23433
2175 N California Boulevard 1
Suite 835
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone (510) 844-5100
AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Fax (510) 844-5101
1 concert with them from: (1) participating in the management of Trad’r Sam and the operation of
2 Trad’r Sam’s commercial establishment (the “Bar”).
3 Munguia further requests this Court issue an order to show cause re preliminary injunction
4 upon the expiration of the temporary restraining order. The scope and terms of the preliminary
5 injunction be the same as those of the proposed temporary restraining order.
6 Munguia’s application is made pursuant to Corp. Code sections 16401(f), 16404, 16405, and
7 the doctrine against conflicts of interest, and is based on the attached Memorandum, Declaration of
8 Trevor McCann, and the record to date in this action, and such other and further evidence as the
9 Court may allow at the hearing.
10 On June 26, 2023, before 10:00 a.m., notice was given of this ex parte application to Milon
11 and Riedel. Munguia expects that Milon and Riedel will oppose his application. McCann Decl., ¶
12 17.
13 DATED: June 27, 2023 COLLINS + COLLINS LLP
14

15 By: ________________________________
TREVOR B. McCANN
16 RYAN P. HARLEY
Attorneys for DEFENDANT/CROSS-
17 COMPLAINANT JOHN MUNGUIA
18

28
23433
2175 N California Boulevard 2
Suite 835
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone (510) 844-5100
AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Fax (510) 844-5101
1 MEMORANDUM
2 I. FACTS
3 On August 28, 2020, Riedel initiated filed a Complaint in the matter styled Dorothy Riedel
4 and Trad’r Sam v. Munguia, et al., S.F.S.C. Case No. CGC-20-586308 case as an individual and as
5 de facto managing partner, for Trad’r Sam (the “Partnership Matter”). McCann Decl., ¶ 4. Munguia
6 cross-complained. Id.
7 After she filed the Complaint, Riedel signed a power of attorney granting Milon the powers
8 the operate Trad’r Sam as well as conduct the Partnership Matter for Riedel and Trad’r Sam.
9 McCann Decl., ¶ 5.
10 The Partnership Matter was very contentious with a host of law & motion practice capped
11 by Munguia’s six separate motions to compel Riedel (and Milon) to cooperate in discovery. The
12 Court granted three of those motions to compel and sanction totaling $11,000. McCann Decl., ¶ 6.
13 Munguia was forced to file his Sixth Motion to Compel when Riedel (and Milon) violated two
14 previous Court Orders. Id.
15 More than two years into the Partnership Matter, Riedel (and Milon) produced documents
16 showing that paid Riedel’s attorneys with Trad’r Sam’s income. McCann Decl., ¶ 7. Meanwhile,
17 Riedel and Milon failed and refused to file state and federal tax returns since April 2020 or distribute
18 profits to Munguia. Id.
19 On July 14, 2021, Chee Mee Chin Wong (landlord of the premises occupied by the Bar)
20 (“Wong”) sued Riedel and Munguia as individually named tenants (Trad’r Sam is not a named
21 tenant) for breach of contract because Milon and Riedel failed to properly pay rent; the matter is
22 style Wong v. Munguia, et al.; S.F.S.C. Case No. CGC-21-593826 (the “Wong Matter”). McCann
23 Decl., ¶ 8. As of June 23, 2023, back rent amounts to about $75,000. Id. Munguia has discussed the
24 matter with Wong, and she has represented that she would accept repayment of back due rent
25 according to a long-term payment plan. Id.
26 The Court conducted a bench trial in the Partnership Matter on April 10, 11, 12, 13, and 17,
27 2023. McCann Decl., ¶ 9. Following the trial, on May 5, 2023, the Court issued a Tentative Decision
28
23433
2175 N California Boulevard 3
Suite 835
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone (510) 844-5100
AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Fax (510) 844-5101
1 After Trial (the “Tentative”) and the parties filed their objections. Id. Multiple objections argued by
2 Riedel and Milon were in furtherance of Riedel’s (allocation of attorneys’ fees) and Milon’s
3 (purported non-payment of salary) personal interests and against Trad’r Sam’s interests. Id.
4 On May 25, 2023, the Court issued its Final Statement of Decision and Order After Trial in
5 the Partnership Matter (the “Final Decision”). McCann Decl., ¶ 10. In its Final Decision, the Court
6 found in Munguia’s favor on his breach of fiduciary duties, elder abuse, and conversion claims and
7 against Riedel and ordered that she pay Munguia a net award of $172,007. Id. In reaching its
8 conclusion, the Court considered and rejected, inter alia, “Riedel’s contention that all attorneys’ fees
9 incurred in this action should be considered legitimate expenses of the Trad’r Sam Partnership”
10 because “the lion’s share” of fees incurred in the action were attributable to Riedel vindicating her
11 personal interests and defending against her individual liability. Id.
12 Riedel filed objections to Munguia’s [Proposed] Judgment. McCann Decl., ¶ 11. Again,
13 Riedel and Milon argued that the Court should award Milon her purported salary. Id. In that same
14 document Riedel and Milon informed the Court that Milon would file a separate complaint for
15 breach of contract arising from purported underpayment of salary. Id.
16 Riedel was entirely absent from the Partnership Matter; she refused to sit for a deposition,
17 and she refused to take part in the trial. McCann Decl., ¶ 12. Milon appeared for Riedel at trial. Id.
18 On June 16, 2023, Milon initiated this lawsuit styled Angie Milon v. John Munguia, Dorothy
19 Riedel, Trad’r Sam, a California Partnership, and Does 1–20; S.F.S.C. Case No. CGC-23-607068
20 (the “Milon Matter”). See Complaint, on filed herein. On June 20, 2023, Munguia filed an Answer
21 and Demand for Jury Trial for himself and for Trad’r Sam in the Milon Matter. McCann Decl., ¶ 13.
22 On June 20, 2023, the Court entered its Judgment in this matter. McCann Decl., ¶ 14.
23 Munguia filed and served a Notice of Entry of Judgment Order that same day. Id.
24 On June 25, 2023, in response to a deposition notice for Riedel in the Wong Matter, Riedel’s

25 attorney George Benetatos wrote, “Ms. Riedel is in no condition physically or mentally to be

26 deposed” and further raises questions about Riedel’s mental capacity. McCann Decl., ¶ 15.

27 Throughout the Partnership Matter, Benetatos represented both Riedel and Trad’r Sam, and Milon

28 acted as their agent. Id.
23433
2175 N California Boulevard 4
Suite 835
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone (510) 844-5100
AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Fax (510) 844-5101
1 On June 26, 2023, Munguia filed his Cross-complaint for equitable and legal relief for
2 alleged breach of fiduciary duties by Riedel and Milon during the period January 1, 2023 through
3 the present. McCann Decl., ¶ 16.
4 On June 26 and 27, 2023, Benetatos opined that Riedel lacks mental capacity to sit for a
5 deposition. McCann Decl., ¶ 18.
6 Munguia is ready, willing, and able to manage Trad’r Sam and the Bar–his business for the
7 past thirty-five years–if his Application is granted. He will be assisted by his grandson (JJ) and
8 granddaughter (Alyssa), both of whom have bartended at the Bar, as well as his daughters. Munguia
9 Decl., ¶ 4.
10 II. ARGUMENT
11 A. THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR INTERIM INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
12 A temporary restraining order is properly granted on ex parte notice to prevent irreparable
13 injury pending a hearing on the application for a preliminary injunction. (Code Civ. Proc., §
14 527(c); see also 6 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th (2008) Prov. Rem., § 275, p. 218). To prevent irreparable
15 injury, Courts are empowered to issue orders that compel inaction. (Fretz v. Burke (1967) 247
16 Cal.App.2d 741, 746).
17 In exercising its discretion, the trial court must consider two interrelated factors: (1) the
18 likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of the case at trial, and (2) the harm to be
19 suffered by the plaintiff if the injunction does not issue as compared to the harm to be suffered by
20 the defendant if it does. (Take Me Home Rescue v. Luri (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1350–1353).
21 To obtain a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, a part must establish both

22 factors. (See Sahlolbei v. Providence Healthcare, Inc. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1145). When

23 addressing these factors, the plaintiff must prove the likelihood that it will suffer immediate and

24 irreparable harm due to the inadequacy of other remedies. (Triple A Machine Shop, Inc. v.

25 California (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 131, 138.)

26 Here, preventing irreparable injury to Munguia means ensuring:

27 • Riedel and Milon are prevented from self-dealing, raiding Trad’r Sam’s coffers, and
28 freezing Munguia out of the partnership.
23433
2175 N California Boulevard 5
Suite 835
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone (510) 844-5100
AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Fax (510) 844-5101
1 • Riedel and Milon’s conflicts of interest do not take precedence over Munguia’s (and
2 Trad’r Sam’s) interests.
3 The only way to prevent the apparent conflicts of interest is to restrain Riedel and Milon from
4 exercising management authority of Trad’r Sam.
5 B. BLATANT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST NOW EXIST BETWEEN RIEDEL, MILON, AND
6 TRAD’R SAM.
7 It is axiomatic that “a person cannot serve two masters simultaneously.” (Thompson v. Call
8 (1985) Cal.3d 633, 637.) That sentiment regarded as a “self-evident truth, as trite and impregnable
9 as the law of gravitation.” (Stockton P. & S. Co. v. Wheeler (1924) 68 Cal.App. 592, 601.) By
10 filing her Complaint and continuing as Trad’r Sam’s de facto manager, Milon is now in the
11 position of having to serve two masters: herself as Plaintiff and Trad’r Sam as Defendant.
12 1. Riedel and Milon used, and continue to use, this Court to advance their own
interests over Munguia’s (and Trad’r Sam’s) interests.
13
In its Final Decision, the Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Riedel failed
14
to distribute $197,306 of partnership profits to Munguia during the period September 2016 through
15
December 2022. Based on that fact, and others, the Court found Riedel liable for breach of
16
fiduciary duties, elder abuse, and conversion. On June 20, 2023, the Court entered Judgment on
17
those same terms.
18
During the period January 2023 through May 2023–which is the subject of Munguia’s
19
Cross-complaint in the Milon Matter–Munguia estimates that Riedel and Milon have withheld
20
from him about $7,000 per month of Trad’r Sam’s profits, or about $30,000.
21
When Riedel objected to that finding that attorneys’ bills were not a legitimate Trad’r Sam
22
expense, the Court responded, “Riedel’s contention that all attorneys’ fees incurred in this action
23
should be considered legitimate expenses of the Trad’r Sam Partnership” because “the lion’s
24
share” of fees incurred in the action were attributable to Riedel vindicating her personal interests
25
and defending against her individual liability.
26
In her objections to the Tentative and Final Decision, Riedel also argued that the Court’s
27 findings as to the amount damages was wrong because the Court failed to consider back rent owed
28
23433
2175 N California Boulevard 6
Suite 835
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone (510) 844-5100
AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Fax (510) 844-5101
1 to Wong, unpaid salary purportedly owed to Milon, and the need for Trad’r Sam to maintain
2 operating capital. The Court twice rejected Riedel’s objections.
3 2. Milon’s lawsuit against Riedel and Trad’r Sam is an egregious example of a
conflict of interest.
4
On June 16, 2023, Milon filed her Complaint in the Milon Matter against Munguia, Riedel,
5
and Trad’r Sam for alleged failure to pay Milon’s salary. As Riedel’s attorney in fact and de facto
6
manager of Trad’r Sam, Milon has in essence sued herself!
7
Were she allowed to continue her role as Trad’r Sam’s de facto manager, Milon would, of
8
course, simply accede to her individual demands. Munguia can think of no better example of a
9
conflict of interest.
10
3. Riedel breached, and continues to breach, her fiduciary duties.
11
Cal Corp Code § 16404 codifies the fiduciary duties of loyalty and care among partners.
12
See also MacMorris Sales Corp. v. Kozak (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 430 (each partner or associate
13
operates a fiduciary relationship to the others in all matters pertaining to the partnership
14
enterprise); Richards v. Fraser (1898) 122 Cal. 456 (the utmost good faith is required of the partner
15
in whom the confidence is reposed).“A partner’s duty of care to the partnership and the other
16
partners in the conduct and winding up of the partnership business is limited to refraining from
17 engaging in grossly negligent or reckless conduct, intentional misconduct, or a knowing violation
18 of law.” Cal Corp Code § 16404(c).
19 In its Final Decision, the Court found that Riedel violated her fiduciary duties to Munguia
20 when she failed to distribute at least $192,306.00 during the period September 2016 through
21 December 2022. On June 20, 2023, the Court entered Judgment in Munguia’s favor for $172,007
22 (a net award that accounted for $25,299 in damages Munguia must pay to Riedel).
23 That finding notwithstanding, Riedel and Milon continue to withhold Trad’r Sam’s profits
24 from Munguia to the tune of about $30,000 for the period January 2023 through the present. Riedel

25 and Milon purport that there are not profits and they are conserving cash for various purposes (e.g.,

26 past due rent, Milon’s unpaid salary claim, and operating capital), but they can’t support their

27 position.

28
23433
2175 N California Boulevard 7
Suite 835
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone (510) 844-5100
AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Fax (510) 844-5101
1 First, in the Wong Matter, Ms. Wong has already represented that she would accept a long-
2 term payout schedule for back due rent. Second, Milon’s unpaid “salary” is now the subject of a
3 lawsuit, the outcome of which is uncertain. 1 Finally, Riedel and Milon claim that Trad’r Sam needs
4 operating capital of several tens of the thousands of dollars, so there are not profits to distribute.

5 Given that Trad’r Sam costs to operate near about only 60% of income, the Bar is amassing money

6 far faster than it would spend it on operations.

7 Finally, Riedel and Milon have failed and refused to file state and federal tax returns since

8 April 2020 which will result in fees and penalties to the partnership. Additionally, because

9 Munguia applied the Internal Revenue Service’s Voluntary Disclosure Program, he is required to

10 timely and truthfully report his individual taxes, which is impossible because his returns are based
on Trad’r Sam’s tax returns.
11
A temporary restraining order and injunction are proper to prevent overbearing assumption
12
by one person of superiority and domination over the rights and property of others (Fretz v. Burke
13
(1967), 247 Cal.App.2d 741, 746). Here, Riedel and Milon are abusing their positions as Trad’r
14
Sam’s de facto managers to destroy Munguia.
15
A temporary restraining order and injunction are also proper to eliminate Milon’s blatant
16
conflict of interest. As Trad’r Sam’ de facto manager, Milon would be defending the partnership
17
against her individual lawsuit. And while the issue of standing may present an issue, Munguia also
18
brings to the Court’s attention the fact that Milon sued Riedel, the very person who granted Milon
19
authority to manage Trad’r Sam in the first place.
20
C. THE BALANCE OF HARMS TIPS SHARPLY IN MUNGUIA’S FAVOR
21
The Court must next balance the harm that Munguia is likely to suffer if injunctive relief
22
does not issue against the harm that Dorothy is likely to suffer if it does. (Cohen v. Bd. of
23
Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 286; IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 69-
24 70). “To qualify for… injunctive relief plaintiffs must show irreparable injury, either existing or
25
1
In deposition, Milon testified that she was not paid for her work as Trad’r Sam’s manager. At trial,
26
Milon changed her testimony and claimed that Riedel authorized the salary, but Riedel refused to
27 testify in the matter, so Munguia was never given the opportunity to verify Milon’s assertions.
Milon also objected the Tentative and Final Decision, claiming that the Court’s findings support her
28 lawsuit, but the Final Decision does not say what Milon purports it says.
23433
2175 N California Boulevard 8
Suite 835
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone (510) 844-5100
AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Fax (510) 844-5101
1 threatened. (City of Torrance v. Transitional Living Ctrs. For L.A., Inc. (1982) 230 Cal.3d 516,
2 526 citing 7978 Corp. v. Pitchess (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 42, 46; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 526,
3 subd. (a).) An injunction may be granted when it appears by the complaint or affidavits (or
4 declarations) that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce

5 waste, or great or irreparable injury to a party to the action (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 526(a)(2), 2015.5;

6 Volpicelli v. Jared Sydney Torrance Memorial Hosp. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 242; Smith v. Smith

7 (1942) 49 Cal.App.2d 716, 718–719). The term “irreparable injury” means that species of

8 damages, whether great or small, that ought not to be submitted to on the one hand or inflicted on

9 the other (Wind v. Herbert (1960) 186 Cal. App. 2d 276, 285). This definition warrants the use of

10 the injunctive power of the court against a wrong that a trial judge deems insufferable because it
constitutes an overbearing assumption by one person of superiority and domination over the rights
11
and property of others (Fretz, 247 Cal.App.2d at 746).
12
An injunction may also be granted when pecuniary compensation would not afford
13
adequate relief or when it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation
14
that would afford adequate relief. (Code Civ. Proc. § 526(a)(4), 526(a)(5); Lofton v. Wells Fargo
15
Home Mortgage (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1061–1069; Union Oil Co. v. Domengeaux (1939)
16
30 Cal.App.2d 266, 270–271).
17
The more likely it is that the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, the less severe must be the
18
harm that it alleges will occur if the injunction does not issue (Take Me Home Rescue, 208
19
Cal.App.4th at p. 1350.) For nearing three years, Riedel and Milon have forced Munguia to suffer
20
emotionally and financially. The Partnership Matter ended in a finding that Riedel breached her
21
fiduciary duties to Munguia and Riedel and Milon failed and refused to properly distributed Trad’r
22
Sam’s profits.
23
Now, even after Riedel was found liable, she and Milon have persisted in their misconduct.
24
D. RIEDEL WILL SUFFER NO HARM IF SHE IS EXCLUDED FROM MANAGEMENT.
25
Munguia has more than 40 years’ experience owning and operating bars and restaurants.
26
In April, May, and June of 2020 year, Munguia’s daughter Michelle O’Dowd demonstrated her
27

28
23433
2175 N California Boulevard 9
Suite 835
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone (510) 844-5100
AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Fax (510) 844-5101
1 abilities to assist Munguia. And Munguia’s family and the rest of the Bar’s staff are ready and able
2 to work to ensure the Bar is operated lawfully, competently, and consistently.
3 What exactly Riedel would suffer is an issue raised by her absence from Partnership Matter
4 and Benetatos’ representations in the Wong Matter that Riedel lacks physical and mental capacities
5 to sit for a deposition in the Wong Matter and a debtor hearing in the Partnership Matter. If she is
6 not well enough to merely sit for a deposition it is important to ask whether Riedel should be
7 precluded entirely from Trad’r Sam management pursuant to Corp Code section 16601(7)(C)
8 which provides, that a partner is dissociates and loses management rights upon “A judicial
9 determination that the partner has otherwise become incapable of performing the partner’s duties
10 under the partnership agreement.”
11 Riedel can point to no harm she would suffer if restrained from managing Trad’r Sam
12 and the Bar–none exists.
13 III. CONCLUSION
14 California statutes and caselaw apply directly to this matter–and in Munguia’s favor.

15 This Application is about Milon’s conflicts of interest and her ongoing conduct to freeze

16 Munguia out of Trad’r Sam and subject him to ongoing breaches of fiduciary duties. Absent

17 Milon’s removal, Milon’s conduct will continue, as it has for nearly three years.

18 This Court should grant Munguia’s application for a temporary restraining order and issue

19 and Order to Show Cause why Riedel and Milon should not be enjoined from managing or taking

20 part in Trad’r Sam.

22 DATED: June 27, 2023 COLLINS + COLLINS LLP
23
By: ________________________________
24
TREVOR B. McCANN
25 RYAN P. HARLEY
Attorneys for DEFENDANT/CROSS-
26 COMPLAINANT JOHN MUNGUIA
27

28
23433
2175 N California Boulevard 10
Suite 835
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone (510) 844-5100
AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Fax (510) 844-5101
1 DECLARATION OF JOHN MUNGUIA
2 I, John Munguia, declare:
3 1. I am Defendant/Cross-complainant in this matter. I am a 50% owner of Trad’r Sam, a
4 California general partnership (“Trad’r Sam”). Trad’r Sam owns and operates a bar in San Francisco,
5 California (the “Bar”).
6 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called upon
7 to do so, could competently testify to them under oath.
8 3. This declaration is made in support of my ex parte application.
9 4. I have owned and operated bars in the Bay Area for more than four decades and
10 done all manner of work including bartending, ordering, and general management.
11 5. For the past three years, my niece, Angie Milon has managed Trad’r Sam against
12 my wishes and without my consent.
13 6. I am ready, willing, and able to manage Trad’r Sam and the Bar if my Application
14 is granted. My grandson (JJ) and granddaughter (Alyssa), both of whom have bartended at the Bar,
15 as well as my daughters are standing by to lend their assistance as well.
16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
17 foregoing is true and correct
18

19 Dated: June 27, 2023
20

28
23433
2175 N California Boulevard 11
Suite 835
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone (510) 844-5100
AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Fax (510) 844-5101
1 DECLARATION OF TREVOR MCCANN
2 I, Trevor McCann, declare:
3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all court in the State of California
4 and am an attorney with Collins + Collins, LLP, attorneys of record for Defendant/Cross-complainant
5 John Munguia (“Munguia”) in this matter.
6 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called upon
7 to do so, could competently testify to them under oath.
8 3. This declaration is made in support of Munguia’s ex parte application.
9 4. On August 28, 2020, Riedel initiated filed a Complaint in the matter styled Dorothy
10 Riedel and Trad’r Sam v. Munguia, et al., S.F.S.C. Case No. CGC-20-586308 case as an individual
11 and as de facto managing partner, for Trad’r Sam (the “Partnership Matter”). Munguia cross-
12 complained.
13 5. After she filed the Complaint, Riedel signed a power of attorney granting Milon the
14 powers the operate Trad’r Sam as well as conduct the Partnership Matter for Riedel and Trad’r Sam.
15 6. The Partnership Matter was very contentious with a host of law & motion practice
16 capped by Munguia’s six separate motions to compel Riedel (and Milon) to cooperate in discovery.
17 The Court granted three of those motions to compel and sanction totaling $11,000. Munguia was
18 forced to file his Sixth Motion to Compel when Riedel (and Milon) violated two previous Court
19 Orders.
20 7. More than two years into the Partnership Matter, Riedel (and Milon) produced
21 documents showing that paid Riedel’s attorneys with Trad’r Sam’s income. Meanwhile, Riedel and
22 Milon failed and refused to file state and federal tax returns since April 2020 or distribute profits to
23 Munguia.
24 8. On July 14, 2021, Chee Mee Chin Wong (landlord of the premises occupied by the
25 Bar) (“Wong”) sued Riedel and Munguia as individually named tenants (Trad’r Sam is not a named
26 tenant) for breach of contract because Milon and Riedel failed to properly pay rent; the matter is style
27 Wong v. Munguia, et al.; S.F.S.C. Case No. CGC-21-593826 (the “Wong Matter”). As of June 23,
28
23433
2175 N California Boulevard 12
Suite 835
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone (510) 844-5100
AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Fax (510) 844-5101
1 2023, back rent amounts to about $75,000. Id. Munguia has discussed the matter with Wong, and she
2 has represented that she would accept repayment of back due rent according to a long-term payment
3 plan.
4 9. The Court conducted a bench trial in the Partnership Matter on April 10, 11, 12, 13,
5 and 17, 2023. McCann Decl., ¶ 8. Following the trial, on May 5, 2023, the Court issued a Tentative
6 Decision After Trial (the “Tentative”) and the parties filed their objections. Multiple objections
7 argued by Riedel and Milon were in furtherance of Riedel’s (allocation of attorneys’ fees) and
8 Milon’s (purported non-payment of salary) personal interests and against Trad’r Sam’s interests.
9 10. On May 25, 2023, the Court issued its Final Statement of Decision and Order After
10 Trial in the Partnership Matter (the “Final Decision”). In its Final Decision, the Court found in
11 Munguia’s favor on his breach of fiduciary duties, elder abuse, and conversion claims and against
12 Riedel and ordered that she pay Munguia a net award of $172,007. In reaching its conclusion, the
13 Court considered and rejected, inter alia, “Riedel’s contention that all attorneys’ fees incurred in this
14 action should be considered legitimate expenses of the Trad’r Sam Partnership” because “the lion’s
15 share” of fees incurred in the action were attributable to Riedel vindicating her personal interests and
16 defending against her individual liability. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of
17 the Final Decision.
18 11. Riedel filed objections to Munguia’s [Proposed] Judgment. Again, Riedel and Milon
19 argued that the Court should award Milon her purported salary. In that same document Riedel and
20 Milon informed the Court that Milon would file a separate complaint for breach of contract arising
21 from purported underpayment of salary. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of
22 Riedel’s objections to the Final Decision.
23 12. Riedel was entirely absent from the Partnership Matter; she refused to sit for a
24 deposition, and she refused to take part in the trial. Milon appeared for Riedel at trial. Id.
25 13. On June 16, 2023, Milon initiated this lawsuit styled Angie Milon v. John Munguia,
26 Dorothy Riedel, Trad’r Sam, a California Partnership, and Does 1–20; S.F.S.C. Case No. CGC-23-
27

28
23433
2175 N California Boulevard 13
Suite 835
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone (510) 844-5100
AMENDED EX PARTE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Fax (510) 844-5101
1 607068 (the “Milon Matter”). See Complaint. On June 20, 2023, Munguia filed an Answer and
2 Demand for Jury Trial for himself and for Trad’r Sam in the Milon Matter.
3 14. On June 20, 2023, the Court entered its Judgment in this matter. Munguia filed and
4 served a Notice of Entry of Judgment Order that same day. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and
5 correct copy of the Judgment.
6 15. On June 25, 2023, in response to a deposition notice for Riedel in the Wong Matter,
7 Riedel’s attorney George Benetatos wrote, “Ms. Riedel is in no condition physically or mentally to
8 be deposed” and further raises questions about Riedel’s mental capacity. Throughout the Partnership
9 Matter, Benetatos represented both Riedel and Trad’r Sam, and Milon acted as their agent. Attached
10 hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of George Benetatos’ June 25, 2023 8:06 p.m. email to
11 Trevor McCann.
12 16. On June 26, 2023, Munguia filed his Cross-complaint for equitable and legal relief for
13 alleged breach of fiduciary duties by Riedel and Milon during the period January 1, 2023 through the
14 present. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of Munguia’s Cross-complaint filed
15 June 26, 2023.
16 17. On June 26, 2023 at 9:50 a.m., I sent notice of an ex parte hearing to Milon and George
17 Benetatos. I expect Milon will oppose Mun

Case Info

Judge

RICHARD B. ULMER Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

June 27, 2023

Case Filing Date

June 16, 2023

County

Parties

DOES 1 TO 20 Defendant
MCANN, TREVOR Attorneys for Defendants
MCANN, TREVOR Attorney for the Defendant
MILON, ANGIE Cross Defendant
MILON, ANGIE Plaintiff
MUNGUIA, JOHN Cross Complainant
MUNGUIA, JOHN Defendant
Pro Per Attorney
Pro Per Attorney for the Plaintiff
RIEDEL, DOROTHY Cross Defendant
RIEDEL, DOROTHY Defendant
TRAD'R SAM, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP Defendant
Ryan Harley Attorneys for Defendants
George Benetatos Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Richard Diles Attorney
Ryan McHugh Attorneys for Defendants
Truman Phan-Quang Attorney
Jeffery Woo Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Jaimie Bombard Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Matthew Angell Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Andrew Schick Attorneys for Plaintiffs

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

Order to Show Cause: ANGIE MILON VS. JOHN MUNGUIA ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties