Preview
21CV379828
Santa Clara — Civil
Electronically Filed
PAUL NGUYEN by Superior Court of CA,
PO Box 2940 County of Santa Clara,
Ventura, CA 93002-2940 on 6/14/2021 9:48 PM
Telephone: (949) 667-2340 Reviewed By: L. Nguyen
Case #21CV379828
Envelope: 6647636
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Defendant In Pro Per
Case No.: 21CV379828
EMPIRE INVESTMENTS, LLC;
NGUYEN-HA LIVING TRUST DATED
12/10/04 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DISSOLVE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER.
Plaintiffs,
[Hearing NOT requested, Local Rule 16(c)]
VS.
PAUL KIM PHONG NGUYEN; CHASE
MERRITT FUND I, LLC; PARKER
FORECLOSURE SERVICES, LLC; and DOES
1 through DOES 10, inclusive,
Defendants
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 15, 2021, Defendant PAUL NGUYEN (“PAUL
N.”), will and hereby does move the Court with an Ex Parte Application to dissolve the order
granting preliminary injunction on May 20, 2021.
This Ex Parte application is brought pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 529 and is based on
the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, the Request for Judicial Notice filed
concurrently herewith, all pleadings and papers filed in this action, and such additional papers
and arguments as may be presented at or in connection with the hearing.
//
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DISSOVLE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER.
127
28
Dated: June 15, 2021
By: PAUL NG N
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DISSOVLE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER.
227
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On 05/20/2021, Hon. Audra Ibarra in Department 12 of the Santa Clara Superior Court
held a hearing relating to Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed Plaintiffs Empire Investment
LLC (“EMPIRE”) and Nguyen-Ha Living Trust Date 12/10/04 (“LIVING TRUST”). The Court
made multiple rulings including granting preliminary injunction with a bond in the amount of
$150,000.00 to be posted by Plaintiffs.
On 05/21/2021, Defendant Paul Nguyen executed the proposed order.
On 05/22/2021, Vince Nguyen aka Vinh Nguyen, executed the proposed order on the
behalf of Plaintiffs as their attorney.
On 05/27/2021, Hon. Audra Ibarra signed the order.
The order as signed stated: “Within 10 statutory days or a reasonable period time
extended by the court, Plaintiffs shall provide to the Court a bond in the amount of one-hundred-
fifty-thousand dollars ($150,000.00).”
As of June 14, 2021, Plaintiffs have not posted the bond as ordered by the Court.
THE COURT ORDER GRANTING PRELINARY INJUNCTION MUST BE
DISSOVLED FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE UNDERTAKING
California Rule Of Court, Rule 3.1150(f) states:
“Notwithstanding rule 3.1312, whenever an application for a preliminary injunction is
granted, a proposed order must be presented to the judge for signature, with an
undertaking in the amount ordered, within one court day after the granting of the
application or within the time ordered. Unless otherwise ordered, any restraining order
previously granted remains in effect during the time allowed for presentation for
signature of the order of injunction and undertaking. If the proposed order and the
undertaking required are not presented within the time allowed, the TRO may be vacated
without notice. All bonds and undertakings must comply with rule 3.1130.” Emphasis
Added.
Code Civ. Proc., § 529(a) states: “On granting an injunction, the court or judge must
require an undertaking on the part of the applicant to the effect that the applicant will pay to the
party enjoined any damages, not exceeding an amount to be specified, the party may sustain by
reason of the injunction, if the court finally decides that the applicant was not entitled to the
injunction. ... If the court determines that the applicant’s undertaking is insufficient and a
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DISSOVLE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER.
327
28
sufficient undertaking is not filed within the time required by statute, the order granting the
injunction must be dissolved."
Here, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction on May 20, 2021. As ordered,
Plaintiffs shall post a bond in 10 days, which would be May 30, 2021. Assume that Plaintiffs
may miscalculate when the 10 days would triggered using the date in which the order was signed]
on May 27, 2021. The 10-days that allow to Plaintiffs to post a bond would expire on June 06,
2021.
To date, Plaintiffs have not notify Defendant that they have post the bond as ordered.
THEREFORE, Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 529(a), the order granting preliminary
injunction must be dissolved.
CONCLUSION
Defendant PAUL N therefore prays the Court to dissolve its preliminary injunction order
signed on or about May 27, 2021 pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 529(a).
Dated: June 15, 2021
By: PAUL NGUYEN
Defendant in Pro Per
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DISSOVLE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER.
427
28
PAUL NGUYEN
PO Box 2940
Venture, CA 93002-2940
Telephone: (949) 667-2340
Defendant In Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Case No.: 21CV379828
EMPIRE INVESTMENTS, LLC;
NGUYEN-HA LIVING TRUST DATED
12/10/04 DECLARATION OF PAUL NGUYEN RE
NOTIFICATION OF EX PARTE
Plaintiffs, APPLICATION TO DISSOLVE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
VS.
PAUL KIM PHONG NGUYEN; CHASE
MERRITT FUND I, LLC; PARKER
FORECLOSURE SERVICES, LLC; and DOES
1 through DOES 10, inclusive,
Defendants
I, PAUL NGUYEN, DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:
On June 14, 2021, at about 9:50 P.M., I emailed Mr. Vince Nguyen aka Vinh Nguyen, the
attorney for Plaintiffs in the above captioned case, notified him that I will bring an Ex Parte
Application to dissolve the May 27, 2021 order granting preliminary injunction. A true and
correct copy of notification is attached herein as Exhibit “1”.
Under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, I declare that the foregoing
are the truth, except that on items I mentioned “on information and belief”. Those are the best of
my knowledge and/or memory, and that this Declaration is executed on the date shown below.
DECLARATION OF PAUL NGUYEN RE NOTIFICATION OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DISSOLVE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
127
28
Dated: June 15, 2021
By: PXUL NG
DECLARATION OF PAUL NGUYEN RE NOTIFICATION OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DISSOLVE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
2EXHIBIT 1Paul Nguyen
PO Box 2940
Ventura, CA 93002-2940
June 14, 2021 Sent via email to vincen@newtonlawgroup.com
Newton Law Group
Attention: Vince Nguyen
1302 Lincoln Ave. Suite 204
San Jose, CA 95125
Email: vincen@newtonlawgroup.com
Tel (408) 828-8078
Fax (408) 624-1014
Re: Empire Investments LLC et.al. vs Paul Nguyen et.al., Case No. 21CV379828
Mr. Vince Nguyen aka Vinh Nguyen:
This is a Notice of Ex-Parte Application, in compliance with Santa Clara County Superior
Court Local Rule-Civil Rule No. 16 and CRC Rule 3.1203, in which Paul Nguyen, a defendant, in
the above-referenced case, will apply to the court to dissolve May 27, 2021 Order granting
preliminary injunction.
This ex-parte will be heard at:
Santa Clara County Superior Court,
191 N. First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
Department: To be assigned
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16, All Ex Parte applications will be heard on the papers
unless the Court orders otherwise, or if either party shows good cause for a hearing.
Regards;
Paul Nguyen
Preview
21CV379828 Santa Clara — Civil Electronically Filed PAUL NGUYEN by Superior Court of CA, PO Box 2940 County of Santa Clara, Ventura, CA 93002-2940 on 6/14/2021 9:48 PM Telephone: (949) 667-2340 Reviewed By: L. Nguyen Case #21CV379828 Envelope: 6647636 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Defendant In Pro Per Case No.: 21CV379828 EMPIRE INVESTMENTS, LLC; NGUYEN-HA LIVING TRUST DATED 12/10/04 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER. Plaintiffs, [Hearing NOT requested, Local Rule 16(c)] VS. PAUL KIM PHONG NGUYEN; CHASE MERRITT FUND I, LLC; PARKER FORECLOSURE SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through DOES 10, inclusive, Defendants TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 15, 2021, Defendant PAUL NGUYEN (“PAUL N.”), will and hereby does move the Court with an Ex Parte Application to dissolve the order granting preliminary injunction on May 20, 2021. This Ex Parte application is brought pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 529 and is based on the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, the Request for Judicial Notice filed concurrently herewith, all pleadings and papers filed in this action, and such additional papers and arguments as may be presented at or in connection with the hearing. // EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DISSOVLE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER. 127 28 Dated: June 15, 2021 By: PAUL NG N EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DISSOVLE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER. 227 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES PROCEDURAL HISTORY On 05/20/2021, Hon. Audra Ibarra in Department 12 of the Santa Clara Superior Court held a hearing relating to Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed Plaintiffs Empire Investment LLC (“EMPIRE”) and Nguyen-Ha Living Trust Date 12/10/04 (“LIVING TRUST”). The Court made multiple rulings including granting preliminary injunction with a bond in the amount of $150,000.00 to be posted by Plaintiffs. On 05/21/2021, Defendant Paul Nguyen executed the proposed order. On 05/22/2021, Vince Nguyen aka Vinh Nguyen, executed the proposed order on the behalf of Plaintiffs as their attorney. On 05/27/2021, Hon. Audra Ibarra signed the order. The order as signed stated: “Within 10 statutory days or a reasonable period time extended by the court, Plaintiffs shall provide to the Court a bond in the amount of one-hundred- fifty-thousand dollars ($150,000.00).” As of June 14, 2021, Plaintiffs have not posted the bond as ordered by the Court. THE COURT ORDER GRANTING PRELINARY INJUNCTION MUST BE DISSOVLED FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE UNDERTAKING California Rule Of Court, Rule 3.1150(f) states: “Notwithstanding rule 3.1312, whenever an application for a preliminary injunction is granted, a proposed order must be presented to the judge for signature, with an undertaking in the amount ordered, within one court day after the granting of the application or within the time ordered. Unless otherwise ordered, any restraining order previously granted remains in effect during the time allowed for presentation for signature of the order of injunction and undertaking. If the proposed order and the undertaking required are not presented within the time allowed, the TRO may be vacated without notice. All bonds and undertakings must comply with rule 3.1130.” Emphasis Added. Code Civ. Proc., § 529(a) states: “On granting an injunction, the court or judge must require an undertaking on the part of the applicant to the effect that the applicant will pay to the party enjoined any damages, not exceeding an amount to be specified, the party may sustain by reason of the injunction, if the court finally decides that the applicant was not entitled to the injunction. ... If the court determines that the applicant’s undertaking is insufficient and a EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DISSOVLE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER. 327 28 sufficient undertaking is not filed within the time required by statute, the order granting the injunction must be dissolved." Here, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction on May 20, 2021. As ordered, Plaintiffs shall post a bond in 10 days, which would be May 30, 2021. Assume that Plaintiffs may miscalculate when the 10 days would triggered using the date in which the order was signed] on May 27, 2021. The 10-days that allow to Plaintiffs to post a bond would expire on June 06, 2021. To date, Plaintiffs have not notify Defendant that they have post the bond as ordered. THEREFORE, Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 529(a), the order granting preliminary injunction must be dissolved. CONCLUSION Defendant PAUL N therefore prays the Court to dissolve its preliminary injunction order signed on or about May 27, 2021 pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 529(a). Dated: June 15, 2021 By: PAUL NGUYEN Defendant in Pro Per EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DISSOVLE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ORDER. 427 28 PAUL NGUYEN PO Box 2940 Venture, CA 93002-2940 Telephone: (949) 667-2340 Defendant In Pro Per SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Case No.: 21CV379828 EMPIRE INVESTMENTS, LLC; NGUYEN-HA LIVING TRUST DATED 12/10/04 DECLARATION OF PAUL NGUYEN RE NOTIFICATION OF EX PARTE Plaintiffs, APPLICATION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. VS. PAUL KIM PHONG NGUYEN; CHASE MERRITT FUND I, LLC; PARKER FORECLOSURE SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through DOES 10, inclusive, Defendants I, PAUL NGUYEN, DECLARE AS FOLLOWS: On June 14, 2021, at about 9:50 P.M., I emailed Mr. Vince Nguyen aka Vinh Nguyen, the attorney for Plaintiffs in the above captioned case, notified him that I will bring an Ex Parte Application to dissolve the May 27, 2021 order granting preliminary injunction. A true and correct copy of notification is attached herein as Exhibit “1”. Under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, I declare that the foregoing are the truth, except that on items I mentioned “on information and belief”. Those are the best of my knowledge and/or memory, and that this Declaration is executed on the date shown below. DECLARATION OF PAUL NGUYEN RE NOTIFICATION OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. 127 28 Dated: June 15, 2021 By: PXUL NG DECLARATION OF PAUL NGUYEN RE NOTIFICATION OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. 2EXHIBIT 1Paul Nguyen PO Box 2940 Ventura, CA 93002-2940 June 14, 2021 Sent via email to vincen@newtonlawgroup.com Newton Law Group Attention: Vince Nguyen 1302 Lincoln Ave. Suite 204 San Jose, CA 95125 Email: vincen@newtonlawgroup.com Tel (408) 828-8078 Fax (408) 624-1014 Re: Empire Investments LLC et.al. vs Paul Nguyen et.al., Case No. 21CV379828 Mr. Vince Nguyen aka Vinh Nguyen: This is a Notice of Ex-Parte Application, in compliance with Santa Clara County Superior Court Local Rule-Civil Rule No. 16 and CRC Rule 3.1203, in which Paul Nguyen, a defendant, in the above-referenced case, will apply to the court to dissolve May 27, 2021 Order granting preliminary injunction. This ex-parte will be heard at: Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 N. First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Department: To be assigned Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16, All Ex Parte applications will be heard on the papers unless the Court orders otherwise, or if either party shows good cause for a hearing. Regards; Paul Nguyen