On September 30, 2022 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Varma, Meenakshi,
Varma, Satishchandara,
Varma, Satishchandra,
and
American Capital Consulting Group, Llc,
Annunziato Holding, Llc,
Gonzales, Enna,
Hoang, Tamie,
Hyde, Jacob,
Nguyen, Kim,
for Contract - Other Contract
in the District Court of Fort Bend County.
Preview
CAUSE NO. 22 297627
SATISHCHANDARA VARMA IN THE DISTRICT COURT
MEENAKSHI VARMA
Plaintiffs
JUDICIAL DISTRICT
KIM NGUYEN; TAMIE HOANG;
ENNA GONZALES; AMERICAN FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
CAPITAL CONSULTING GROUP;
AND ANNUNZIATO HOLDING, LLC
Defendants
KIM NGUYEN’S MOTION TO DISSOLVE EX PARTE TRO EXPEDITE
DISCOVERY AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION SEEKING
ENFORCEMENT OF PRIOR COURT ORDERS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Kim Nguyen (“Defendant”), Defendant in the above styled and numbered
action and files this otion for the Court to dissolve, the Order Granting erified Emergency
Motion to Continue I hearing Scheduled for 10/10/22 and Responds to Plaintiff on
Seeking Enforcement of Prior Court Orders The efendant would respectfully show as follows
Plaintiffs, Satischandra Varma and Meenakshi Varma (collectively referred to as
“Plaintiffs”), filed this suit against Defendant on September 30, 2022, which at its core revolves
around Plaintiff default on a certain promissory note and subsequent foreclosure.
Plaintiffs allege multiple causes of action, including Texas Finance code violations,
wrongful acceleration and institution of foreclosure, DTPA, fraud or fraud in the inducement,
Intentional Misrepresentation, breach of contract and also seeks injunctive relief.
On September 30, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff Temporary Restraining
Order. Defendant did not appear at the hearing. As part of the Court rder, “ Defendants are
hereby ordered to produce documents listed in expedited discovery motion within five days from
this Order and produce witnesses noticed for deposition by Plaintiff within five days of this Order.
4. On October 10, 2022, the Court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue T.I.
Hearing Scheduled for October 10, 2022. Again, the Court ordered the Defendants to complete
written discovery and sit for a deposition within 5 days of service of the Order.
5. The entire basis of Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery was to discover
material facts for the Temporary Injunction hearing scheduled for Tomorrow November 14, 2022.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs stated, “Plaintiffs request that this Court order the taking of these
depositions well in advance of the Temporary Injunction Hearing to be scheduled by this Court.”1
6. On November 13, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion Seeking Enforcement of Prior
Court Orders the day before the hearing. In Plaintiffs’ Motion seeking enforcement of the Ex-Parte
Order, they state zero reasons why it is so urgent that the Plaintiffs continue to have expedited
discovery as the Temporary Injunction hearing will be held on November 14, 2022. Furthermore,
the order granting Plaitniffs’ expedited discovery expired on its terms. Please see Tex. R. Civ. P.
680 Temporary Restraining Order ( [The Order] shall expire by its terms within such time after
signing, not to exceed fourteen days, as the court fixes, unless within the time so fixed the order,
for good cause shown, is extended for a like period or unless the party against whom the order is
directed consents that it may be extended for a longer period.)
7. Lastly, this isn’t Defendant’s counsel’s only case, and scheduling five depositions
with potentially five different counsels will be impractical in a 30-day window. Defendant seeks
that the parties follow the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as there is no need for expedited
discovery given that the Court will rule on the merits of Plaintiffs’ Temporary Injunction.
PRAYER
1
Please see Plaintiffs’ Original Petition ¶104.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, KIM NGUYEN, requests
that the Court DISSOLVE the Order Granting Verified Emergency Motion to Continue T.I.
Hearing Scheduled for 10/10/22 and Order Granting Emergency Application for Temporary
Restraining Order and Setting Hearing on Temporary Injunction, and DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion
Seeking Enforcement of Prior Court Orders.
Respectfully Submitted:
Law Office of William G. Kanyha, PLLC
/s/ William Kanyha
By:______________________________
William Kanyha
Texas Bar No. 24087827
2600 South Loop West Ste 288
Houston, TX 77054
Tel: (281) 974-2109
Fax: (281) 607-4121
Email: will@wgklegal.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
KIM NGUYEN
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument has been
served upon all counsel of record by either U.S. first class mail, certified mail, return receipt
requested, hand-delivery, e-mail or facsimile on Sunday, November 13, 2022.
Azhar Chaudhary Via email – attorney@chaudharyjd.com
440 Louisiana, Suite 948
Houston, Texas 77002
Attorney for Plaintiffs
/s/ William Kanyha
William Kanyha
Preview
CAUSE NO. 22 297627 SATISHCHANDARA VARMA IN THE DISTRICT COURT MEENAKSHI VARMA Plaintiffs JUDICIAL DISTRICT KIM NGUYEN; TAMIE HOANG; ENNA GONZALES; AMERICAN FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS CAPITAL CONSULTING GROUP; AND ANNUNZIATO HOLDING, LLC Defendants KIM NGUYEN’S MOTION TO DISSOLVE EX PARTE TRO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION SEEKING ENFORCEMENT OF PRIOR COURT ORDERS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Kim Nguyen (“Defendant”), Defendant in the above styled and numbered action and files this otion for the Court to dissolve, the Order Granting erified Emergency Motion to Continue I hearing Scheduled for 10/10/22 and Responds to Plaintiff on Seeking Enforcement of Prior Court Orders The efendant would respectfully show as follows Plaintiffs, Satischandra Varma and Meenakshi Varma (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), filed this suit against Defendant on September 30, 2022, which at its core revolves around Plaintiff default on a certain promissory note and subsequent foreclosure. Plaintiffs allege multiple causes of action, including Texas Finance code violations, wrongful acceleration and institution of foreclosure, DTPA, fraud or fraud in the inducement, Intentional Misrepresentation, breach of contract and also seeks injunctive relief. On September 30, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff Temporary Restraining Order. Defendant did not appear at the hearing. As part of the Court rder, “ Defendants are hereby ordered to produce documents listed in expedited discovery motion within five days from this Order and produce witnesses noticed for deposition by Plaintiff within five days of this Order. 4. On October 10, 2022, the Court granted a Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue T.I. Hearing Scheduled for October 10, 2022. Again, the Court ordered the Defendants to complete written discovery and sit for a deposition within 5 days of service of the Order. 5. The entire basis of Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery was to discover material facts for the Temporary Injunction hearing scheduled for Tomorrow November 14, 2022. Specifically, the Plaintiffs stated, “Plaintiffs request that this Court order the taking of these depositions well in advance of the Temporary Injunction Hearing to be scheduled by this Court.”1 6. On November 13, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion Seeking Enforcement of Prior Court Orders the day before the hearing. In Plaintiffs’ Motion seeking enforcement of the Ex-Parte Order, they state zero reasons why it is so urgent that the Plaintiffs continue to have expedited discovery as the Temporary Injunction hearing will be held on November 14, 2022. Furthermore, the order granting Plaitniffs’ expedited discovery expired on its terms. Please see Tex. R. Civ. P. 680 Temporary Restraining Order ( [The Order] shall expire by its terms within such time after signing, not to exceed fourteen days, as the court fixes, unless within the time so fixed the order, for good cause shown, is extended for a like period or unless the party against whom the order is directed consents that it may be extended for a longer period.) 7. Lastly, this isn’t Defendant’s counsel’s only case, and scheduling five depositions with potentially five different counsels will be impractical in a 30-day window. Defendant seeks that the parties follow the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as there is no need for expedited discovery given that the Court will rule on the merits of Plaintiffs’ Temporary Injunction. PRAYER 1 Please see Plaintiffs’ Original Petition ¶104. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant, KIM NGUYEN, requests that the Court DISSOLVE the Order Granting Verified Emergency Motion to Continue T.I. Hearing Scheduled for 10/10/22 and Order Granting Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Setting Hearing on Temporary Injunction, and DENY Plaintiffs’ Motion Seeking Enforcement of Prior Court Orders. Respectfully Submitted: Law Office of William G. Kanyha, PLLC /s/ William Kanyha By:______________________________ William Kanyha Texas Bar No. 24087827 2600 South Loop West Ste 288 Houston, TX 77054 Tel: (281) 974-2109 Fax: (281) 607-4121 Email: will@wgklegal.com ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT KIM NGUYEN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument has been served upon all counsel of record by either U.S. first class mail, certified mail, return receipt requested, hand-delivery, e-mail or facsimile on Sunday, November 13, 2022. Azhar Chaudhary Via email – attorney@chaudharyjd.com 440 Louisiana, Suite 948 Houston, Texas 77002 Attorney for Plaintiffs /s/ William Kanyha William Kanyha