Nguyen Chase Motions Rule 60 (B) and 55 Re Default Judgment

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 1 of 57 Page ID #:1188
JOHN M. SORICH(CA Bar No. 125223)

jsorichC2adorno.com
THEO'QREE. BACON (CA Bar NO.1 15395)
~aC~~si15f&kmyOO (CA Bar No.1 69442)
cyooC2adorno.com
4
5
ADOltOYOSS ALVARADO & SMITH

A Professional Corporation
1 MacArthur Place, Suite 200
Santa Ana, California 92707
Tel: (714) 852-6800
Fax: (714) 852-6899
7
8
Attorneys for Defendants

CHASE BANK USA, N.A. and CHASE
HOME FINANCE LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
OF CALIFORNIA
CENTRAL DISTRICT
11
:r
12
en
ot
13
PAUL NGUYN, an individual; and

LAUR NGUYEN, an individual,
0
'"
..'"
..
,.
..
14
'"
'"
15
v.
;,
0
z'"
16
Chase Bank USA, N.A.; Chase Home

Finance, LLC; First American Loanstar
0
0
'"
17
CASE NO.: CV09-4589 AHM (AJWx)
JUDGE: Hon. A. Howard Matz
Plaintiffs,
Trustee Services; Sydney
DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
AND RELIEF FROM DEFAULT
UNDER RULE 55(c);
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
UNDER
Funding and
Realty, Inc.; Sidney Tran, an Individual;
18
19
20
Nexus Escrow, Inc.; Jolm Ng~yen,an
Individual; Joseph Son Cao Tran, and

Individual; Reafty Savers Inc.; Ngyyen
Paul Tuan, an Individual; and DOES 1
RULE 60(b) of
THEREOF
through 50, inclusive,
55(c) )
(FRCP.Rules60(b) and
21
CTRM: "14"
8, 2010
TIME: 10:00 a.m.
Defendants.
22
DATE: November
23
ActionFiled: June 25, 2009
24
25
PARTIES:
TO PLAINTIFFS AND ALL INTERESTED
26
NOTICE IS GIVEN that under Rule 60(b)
27
("FRCP"), on November 8, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. or as
28
be heard in Courtroom" 1 4" of the above-entitled Court, defendants Chase Bank USA,
of
Federal Rules of
soon
thereafter
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT

1152634.2
Civil Procedure
as the matter can
N.A. ("Chase Bank")
"Defendants") wil move this Court for Relief from the Default Judgment entered on
September 15,2010. The grounds forthe Motion are as follows:
and
. Excusable neglect of
. Attorney negligence is an
Defendants' counseL.
"extra-ordinary" circumstance justifying relief
. The Judgmentis void
entering Defendants' default, as any failure to
fraudulent conduct on the
follow the Court orders was not

part
of
Defendants and
did
not relate to the merits
of the
case. Rule 60(b)(4).
For the same reasons, under Rule 55(c) ofFRCP, Defendants wil move this
11
12
exceeded its authority in
Court
because the
10
Chase Home Finance LLC ("Chase
under Rule 60(b)(6).
:r
Home," and collectively
entry of default on August23, 2010.
Court to set aside the
en
ot
13
Defendants . met and conferred with Plaintiffs. on September 29,
Counsel for
0
'"
..'"
..
,.
..
14
2010 regarding the
'"
'"
15
requirements
z'"
16
DATED: October
~
0
;,
0
0
grounds
of
Local
Rule
for this
Motion. Therefore,Defendantshaveinet the
5,2010
7-3.
ADORNO YOSS ALVARADO & SMITH

'"
Rule
7-3. See, Local
17
By: lsi S. Christopher Yoo

JOHN M. SORICH
S. CHRSTOPHER YOO
18
19
msIrBS\~eEes1~lJ~A. and CHASE
20
HOME FINANCE LLC
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
MOTION FORRELlEF FROM
1152634.2
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
TABLE.OF CONTENTS
Page
2
3
4
5
I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT....................................................................... 1
II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS........................................................3
A. Subject Loan..........................................................................................3
B. Court Order Issuing Injunction Enjoining Foreclosure.........................
C. Defendants' Failure to File Status Report Regarding Status of
Settlement Conference ..........................................................................4

8
Plaintiffs and Defendants to ontinue Trial

Defendants to File Cross-Complaint .... ...................... 5
DEFAULT
FILE PRECONFERENCE STATEMENT WAS DUE TO "EXCUSABLE
NEGLECT"......................................................................................................6
FOR THE NEGLIGENCE
OF THEIR COUNSEL....................................................................................9
DID
FRAUDULENT OR INTENTIONAL
OF DEFAULT AND
DEFAULT JUDGMENT ................................................................................9
D. Agreement Between
Date and Allow
RELIEVED
III. DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE
10
FROM
JUDGMENT, BECAUSE DEFENDANTS' FAILUR TO

TRIAL
11
:r
12
IV. DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE
.
:
en
ot
0
'"
..'"
..
13
V. CONDUCT
14
~
'"
'"
0
0
WARRNT
ENTRY
REASONS THATTHEDEFAULT JUDGMENT
VI. FOR THE SAME
16
~?~ullfJJJL~fEs~~~d~~~~lJ~rn~~~.?~..........ll
17
VII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................12
0'"
WOULD
15
;,
z'"
LEVEL OF
CONDUCT THAT
,...
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
OF DEFENDANTS OR
NOT RISE TO THE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
NO
1152634.2
lICE OF MallON AND MallON 10 DISMISS COMPLAIN I
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
2
3
Cases
Bateman v. United States Postal Service,

231 F.3d 1220,1223 (9th Cir. 2000)...........................................................................7
Brf4fF~3d ~~~~2~6f7th.iff~(8)...............................................................................6
7
8
Community Dental Services v. Tani,
282 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir 2002)............................................................................9
Employee Painter's Trust v. Ethan Enterprises, Inc.,

10
480 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007).............................................................................7
11
Hot!7 U.tl~O~: 413-14 (1897).....................................................................................10
12
:r
:?
en
13
ot
0
'"
..
'"
..
,...
~
'"
'"
;,
0
z'"
"'
..
14
"'
f-
Mendoza v. Wight Vineyard Management,

(9t1 Cir. 1986) .................................................................. 7, 11
783 F.2d 94r, 945-946
Marine, S.A. v. Us. Phosmarine, Inc.,

682 F .2d 802, 805-06 (9th Cir. 1982)...... .................... ........................................ 10, 11
Phoceene So
us
15
16
Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates LTD Partnership,

507 US 390, 394 (1993) .............................................................................................. 7
17
R04t7f!S~1;~s16T(i98r~~~~....................................................................................10
0
'"
18
Securities and Exchange Comrnissionv. Seaboard Corp.,

19
666 F .2d 414, 416- 17 (9th Cir.1982) .......... ..... .......... ............ ............................. 10, 11
20
TCi4~11d i~ ,I696r~the;~2QB~~~~~~~~............................................................... 1 1
21
Televideo Systems, Inc. v. H~identhal,

22
826 F.2d 915,916-917 (9t1 Cir. 1987) ........................................................................9
23
ya~9m~od Vi ~qtt9tl~i;: !'ff).....................................................................................8
24
25
Statutes
15 USC l635(b)...........................................................................................................9
26
Rule 55(c) of
the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure .....................................................11
27
28
Rules
FRCP Rule 60(b ).........................................::............................................................6, 11
11
NO I ICE OF MO I ION AND MO I ION I a DISMISS COMPLAIN I

1152634.2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
FRCP Rule 5 5( c). ............. ....................... .... ............. ........................ .........................1, 11
FRCP Rule 60(b)............................................................................................................. 1
FRCP Rule 60(b )(1) ... ..... ....... ..... ....... ........ .................. ............ ..... ................ ................1 i
FRCP Rule 60(b )(3) ........................................................................................................ 9
FRCP Rule 60(b)(4)........................................................................................................9
FRCP Rule 60(b)( 6) ........................................................................................................ 9
10
11
:r
12
.
:
en
ot
13
0'"
..
'"
..
,.
..
14
'"
'"
15
z'"
16
0
;,
0
0
'"
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iii
NOIICE OF MallON AND MalIaN 10 DISMISS COMPLAIN I
1152634.2
MEMORANDUM.OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A. ("Chase Bank") and Chase Home Finance
2
3
LLC ("Chase Home," and collectively "Defendants'l) hereby submit the following
memorandum of points and authorities in support of their Motion for Relief from
Default Judgment entered on September 15,2010 under Rule 60(b) of
of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") and their Motion to Set Aside Default under Rule 55( c)
ofFRCP.
Federal Rules
ARGUMENT
I. SUMMARY OF
On August 23, 2010, the Court entered default against Defendants because of
10
their counsel's failure to file required pre-trial documents and because of a perceived
11
lack of compliance with certain prior orders (See, Pacer Docket NO.1 15).
12
Specifically, the Court cited the following:
E
:?
en
13
ot
0
'"
..
'"
..
,.
..
"z
'"
'"
~
0
;,
0
z'"
cancel
. On November 17,2010, the Court ordered Defendants to
14
foreclosure of
15
separate occasions.
Defendants continued with foreclosure on two
the subject property, but
;:
16
. Defendants' failure to
this matter
file a status report regarding referral of
'"
17
Magistrate JudgeWistrich
for a settlement conference before
18
. Defendants' failure to file apretrial conference statement.
19
As a result of the
the Court entered
default
Defendants on
judgment on September 15,2010. However, for
20
August 23, 20l0, and
21
the reasons set forth below, Defendants respectfully request that they
22
the Default Judgment, because
23
"excusable neglect" of
24
reasons.
issued a default
be relieved from
any failure to comply with the court orders were due to

Defendants .and/orDefendants' counsel for the following
First, with respect perceived failure to comply with the order to cancel
25
26
foreclosure, the Court acknowledged in its January 26, 2010 order that the foreclosure
27
trustee, Loanstar, when forward with the foreclosure despite having been advised by
28
Defendants' counsel that it was enjoined from doing so. With respect to the second
1

1152634.2
was issued inadvertently
1
I occasion on or about June 28, 2010, the foreclosure notice
2
"
oJ
and thereafter retracted immediately after Plaintiffs brought it to the attention of

Defendants' counseL.
Second, with respect to the failure of the parties to complete a settlement
4
5
.
:
en
the Spring of 20 1 0, including written discovery, and it was not until the depositions of
Plaintiffs in late May
201 0 that it became apparentthatthere were other parties who
were dismissed by Plaintiffs who may bear responsibility for the acts giving rise to
Plaintiffs' lawsuit. Defendants' counsel did initially contact the clerk for Judge
10
:r
May 31, 2010, the case was in active discovery during
conference by the deadline of
light of
Wistrich and provided dates to Plaintiffs in November 2009. However, in
11
factual disputes with the Plaintiffs, it was necessary to undertake discovery. This
12
information is offered as an explanation, not an excuse. Responsibility for the failure
13
0
Q
..
'"
..
,.
..
to complete the settlement conference lies with Defendants' counsel, not the
14
Defendants.
'"
'"
15
ot
;,
0z
'"
0'"
~
Third, the failure to file a pretrial conference statement is the result of the
Defendants' counseL. As noted in documents
16
inadvertence and excusable neglect of
17
previously filed with the Court,
18
agreement to seek the continuance of trial in order to bring into the case
19
parties who bear some responsibility for the
20
The mistake by Defendants' counsel was the failure to file the motion to continue trial
21
at an earlier time iii the action. Theparties were in agreement that these other
22
who Plaintiffs had previously dismissed, were necessary
23
Defendants' counsel and
Plaintiff
had reached an
certain other
events giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims.
parties,
to achieve full and complete
resolution of this matter. It should be noted that Defendants were not the only party
24
who initially failed to file a pretrial
25
one either, yet only the Defendants were
26
conference statement, the Plaintiffs did not file

punished
by the Court.
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants respectfully request the Court to set
27
aside the default judgment, and allow the parties to litigate this matter on the merits.
28
11/
2
1152634.2
FACTS
II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT
A. Subject Loan
Plaintiffs obtained a loan in the amount of $250,000.00 ("Loan") in connection
4
5
6
7
8
10
with the property located at 16141 Quartz Street, Westminster, California 92683
trust encumbering the
("Subject Property"). The Loan was secured by a deed of
Subject Property that was recorded with the Orange County Official Records on
number 2007000731120 ("DOT"). The DOT
December 12,2007 as instrument
identifies Chase Bank as the lender and Plaintiffs as the borrowers. See, Request for
Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Judicial Notice ("RJ"), 1, attached to the
Default and Election to Sell Under
Complaint. Pacer Docket No. 35. A Notice of
11
Deed of Trust ("NOD") was recorded pursuant to the DOT on March 19, 2009 with
12
the Orange County Official Records as instrument number 2009000131 148 due to
13
Plaintiffs' failure to make monthly mortgage
14
March 18,2009, the amount arrears under
'"
'"
15
Exhibit 2. A Substitution of
;,
0
z'"
16
:r
en
ot
payments. The NOD states that as of
0
'"
..'"
..
,.
..
~
0
0
the Loan was $14,372.75. See RJ,

Trustee
to the DOT was recorded on April 22,
pursuant
2009 with the Orange County OfficialRecordsas instrument number 2009000197524.
'"
17
First American Loanstar Trustee
18
RJN, Exhibit 3, Pacer Docket No. 35. An Assignment of
the
Services was namedthe new trustee of
Deed of
30, 2009, with
DOT. See
Trust was recorded
19
on
20
2009000215727. All beneficial interest under the DOT was assigned to IPMorgan
Recorder as instrument number
21
Chase Bank, N.A. ("JPMorgan"). See RJN, Exhibit4, Pacer
22
of Trustee's Sale was recorded pursuant to the DOT on
23
County Official Records as instrument
24
Pacer Docket No. 35.
25
Docket No. 35. A Notice
June 24, 2009 with the Orange
number 200900033 1959. SeeRJ, Exhibit 5,
Foreclosure
B. Court Order Issuing Injunction Enjoining
26
On August 3, 2010, the Court issued apreliminary injunction enjoining
27
foreclosure sale of
28
2010, the Court further ordered Defendants to actually cancel foreclosure of
the SubjectProperty. Pacer Docket No. 45. On November 17,
the
3

1152634.2
Subject Property. Pacer Docket No. 94. On January 4,2010, Plaintiff
for contempt against Defendants and Loanstar for the re-initiation of
Pacer Docket 99. However, in its Order of January 26, 2010, the Court recognized
submitted to the Court evidence that they took measures to comply with its order to
cancel the foreclosure sale and any related
10
12
13
Specifically, on November
proceedings.
16,2009, their counsel sent an email to Loanstar's counsel, notifying Loanstar that the
foreclosure proceedings and instructing them to
Court had ordered cancellation of all
cancel the sale." Pacer Docket No. 105.
The second foreclosure was initiated on June 28, 2010 but rescinded on July 8,
11
ot
Defendants. The Court stated
that the foreclosure was re-initiated without any fault of
in its Order, "Defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance LLC have
.
:
en
the foreclosure.
:r
filed a motion
2010 - two days after Paul Nguyen contacted Defendants' counseL. This inadvertence
by Defendants was remedied within six
days of
being
contacted by Plaintiffs. See
0
Cl
..
'"
..
,...
14
Declaration of S. Christopher Yoo ("Yoo Declaration"),if 4, Exhibit "A." In fact, this
'"
'"
15
issue was resolved without the necessity of any Court intervention.
0
0
;,
-;
'"
16
C. Defendants'Failure to
File Status
Status of
ReportRegarding
'"
Settlement Conference
17
18
19
did contact Judge Wistrich's clerk, and provided
Counsel for Defendants
available dates toMr. Nguyen November 16,2009. Yoo Declaration,if 5, Exhibit
20
"B." From then on, due to the inadvertence of
21
settlement conference was not scheduled. This failure
22
counseL. However, this issue was addressed with Mr.
23
May 27, 2010, and Defendants' counsel
24
the
Defendants' counsel,
is the
fault of
actual
Defendants'
Nguyen at his deposition on

attempted to
schedule
a date for a settlement
conference up to the time of the Scheduling Conference on August 23, 2010.
25
However, judge Wistrich did not want to schedule a
26
deadline to complete the settlement conference had passed as of
27
was the fault of Defendants' counsel by not filing a status report regarding the
28
a settlement conference. However, this was an oversight, and not done intentionally
settlement conference once the
May 31,2010. d. It
4
1152634.2
status of
Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 10 of 57 Page ID

#:1197
or maliciously to either offend the Court or to take improper advantage in litigation.
The case was in active discovery during the Spring of 20 1 0, including written
discovery, and it was not until the depositions of Plairitiffs in late May 2010 that it
became apparent that there were other parties who were dismissed by Plaintiffs who
may bear responsibility for the
D. Agreement Between
Date
:r
Plaintiffs' lawsuit. d.
acts giving rise to
Defendants to Continue Trial
Plaintiffs and
Defendants toFileCross-Contplaint
and Allow
on May 28,2010,
On May 27, 2010, Paul Nguyen's deposition was taken, and
the deposition of
Laura Nguyen was taken per
10
Nguyen was not
11
After the depositions, it becameapparentthatthe other parties
12
may be responsible for the alleged forgery of Laura
13
documents. Based on
because Mrs.
the parties' agreement
available for deposition on
May 21, 201 0,
as originally noticed.
Defendants
besides
Nguyen's signature on certain loan
C
:?
en
ot
testimonies, itbecame apparent that
Plaintiffs' deposition
0'"
..
'"
..
,...
~
'"
'"
0
0
Joseph Cao Son Tran, Angel Tran,SydneyFunding,and Nexus Escrow, Inc. may be
14
"'
f3.
'"
15
responsible for possibly forging Ms.
16
Defendants immediately made a title
17
Company ("Fidelity") to
18
Exhibit "C." Defendants werehopefulthatFidelity would
19
either resolve. the inatter promPtly
20
Defendants' counsel and relieve Defendants of
21
attorneys' fees and
..
on
Nguyen's signature. Thus,
May 27, 2010,
;,
:z
'"
claim to Fidelity
National Title Insurance
'"
22
24
Funding, and Nexus Escrow, Inc. This agreement by
27
the title claim, and
or assumethedefenseof this actiol1iiiPlac~of

the unnecessary burden ofincurring
In this regard, Plaintiffs agreed to stipulate to continue
Defendants to file
26
accept
costs in this action.
23
25
forgery. Yoo Declaration, ir 6,
seek indemnification for
the trial date
to allow
Joseph Cao SOn Tran, Angel Tran, Sydney
a cross-claim against
Plaintiffs is
expressly
acknowledged in Plaintiffs' Response to Order to Show Cause ("0SC") Re: Failure to

Prosecute, and Plaintiffs' Unilateral
Conference Statement,irir 10- 18. Pacer
Pretrial
Docket NO.1 08.
In fact, on August 17,2010, Paul Nguyen sent an email to Defendants' counsel
28
5
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
1152634.2
DEFAULT JUDGMENT

#:1198
1
again reiterating his intention to agree to a stipulation to
leave for Defendants to file a cross-complaint. Yoo Declaration, ii 8, Exhibit "D." In
response, on August 19, 2010, Defendants' counsel forwarded to Plaintiffs the
proposed cross-complaint and the proposed stipulation to continue the trial date.
Because Plaintiffs had objections to the proposed cross-complaint, on August 20,
2010, Defendants' counsel forwarded the revised cross-complaint. Y 00 Declaration,
:r
continue the trial date and
ii 8. Up to the
date
of
on August
Conference
the Pretrial
23, 2010, Defendants'
postponed to allow Defendants to file a
counsel believed that the trial date would be
cross-complaint against certain third parties so that the
entire matter could be resolved
10
in one lawsuit. Y 00 Declaration, ii 9. The failure to file the pretrial conference
11
statement was due to Defendants' mistaken understanding that the parties would
12
continue the trial date and allow Defendants to prosecute the cross-claims.
C
:?
en
ot
The Default Judgment was entered against Defendants on September 15, 2010.
13
0
Q
."
'"
14
See, Pacer Docket Number 127.
~
'"
'"
0
15
III. DEFENDANTS. SHOULD..BE.RELIEVEDFROMDEFAULT
..
,.
..
;,
z'"0
16
JUDGMENT, BECAUSEDEFENDANTS'FAILURE TO.
17
TRIAL CONFERENCESTATEMENT WAS
FILE
PRE-
'"
DUETO "EXCUSABLE
NEGLECT"
18
19
judgment. If
FRCP Rule 60(b) governs amotion to seek relieffrom a default
20
the moving party can show "mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect," the
21
court may set aside a judgment. FRCP 60(b). A Rule60(b) motion must be brought
judgment. FRCP 60(c)(I); Brandon v. Chicago Board
22
within 1 year from the entry of
23
of Ed., 143 F.3d 293, 296 (7th Cir. 1998). Thus, this
24
The factors for "excusable
Motion is timely.
neglect" are:
25
CD prejudice to other side
26
CD length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings
27
CD the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the
28
reasonable control of the movant, and

6
1152634.2

#:1199
. whether the movant acted in good faith.
2
3
Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates LTD Partnership, 507 US

390, 394 (1993).
The Supreme Court stated that all relevant circumstances must be taken into
4
5
account in determining whether the neglect was excusable. Pioneer Investment
Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates LTD Partnership, 507 US at 395.
As to default judgments, the following factors are considered:
7
8
. whether default resulted from defendant's culpable conduct
(devious, deliberate, wilful or bad faith failure to respond)
10
.. whether defendant has meritorious defense; and
11
. whether reopening the default judgment would prejudice plaintiff.
:r
12
Employee Painter's Trust v. Ethan Enterprises, Inc. 480F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir.
ot
13
2007).
.
:
en
0
'"
..'"
..
14
covers negligence onthe part of counseL.
Moreover, excusable neglect
,...
~
'"
;,
0
z'"
15
(9th Cir. 2000).
Bateman v. United States Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220, 1223
16
Additionally, the
Ninth Circuit
has expressed
judicial
a . strong
preference for
'"
17
adjudication on the merits. See Mendoza v. Wight Vineyard
18
941, 945-946 (9th Cir. 1986). "These
19
Management, 783 F.2d
Rule 60(b) grounds are liberally interpreted
when used on a motion for
20
" Id.
As stated above, Defendants' counsel did 110t file a pretrial conference
allow
21
statement, because the parties
22
Defendants an opportunity to file a cross-complaint. See, Yoo Declaration, irir 7-9,
23
Exhibit "D." In fact,
24
trial date and leave for
25
Yoo Declaration, irir 7-9, Exhibit "D." Even
agreed to stipulate to continue the trial date to
Plaintiffs cannot dispute that they agreed to continuance of
the
Defendants to .file a cross-coinplaint other third parties. See,

as of
August i 7,2010, Paul Nguyen sent
26
an email confirming his agreement to continue the trial and leave for Defendants to
27
file a cross-complaint. See, YooDeclaration, ir 8, Exhibit "D."
If the default judgment is to be set aside, there is no prejudice to Plaintiffs,
28
7
1152634.2

#:1200
1
1.
because Plaintiffs have not made any payment under the subject loan since December
2008. In fact, there is no pending foreclosure. See, Y 00 Declaration, iT 10, Exhibit
'1
.)
"E." Thus, a short delay in resolution of
4
5
Once the default judgment is set aside, Defendants wil be ready for trial within
a week of
Alter or Amend the Default Judgment, there is a meritorious defense to Plaintiffs'

contention that Defendants
concurrently filed Motion to Alter or Amend
Circuit law, Plaintiffs are not
11
12
based on the concurrently filed Motion to
the Court's notice. Additionally,
10
not prejudice Plaintiffs.
this matter wil
have forfeited
entitlement to the loan proceeds. See
their
Default Judgment. Based on the 9th

entitled to forfeiture of the subject loan, because until
there is an acknowledgement of rescission
decision maker's
by the lender or the
adjudication of rescission, a plaintiffwouldsimply be advancing a claim for

New York, 329 F.3d 1167, i 172 (9th Cir. 2003).
rescission. Yamamoto v. Bank of
E
:?
en
ot
13
~j
".
14
was contributorily negligent for entering
15
knowledge or consent. In this
16
consent or knowledge. In
17
proposed judgment, she
18
"receive any proceed from" the
19
Thus, Defendants have
20
negligence, and other defenses againstPaulNguyen. Inshort, Paul
21
to obtain a residential loan without
Moreover, testimony at trial
minimum,
wil demonstrate that at
o.
'" .
.... z~
into aJoantransaction without his wife's
,., .:
..)- ~
.c w
z iz
vi":
~
vi? f.
of:
0
z'"
0
Paul Nguyen
loan without his wife's
matter, Mr. Nguyen obtained a
;,.:
fact,
in
Laura
Nguyen's reply
to the objection to the
'"
22
stated "she
was a
stranger to
the transaction," and did not
Pacer DocketNo. 122, page 3.
loan transaction. See,
affirmative defenses of estoppel, unclean hands, contributory

Nguyen's
of
knowledge and COnsent
decision
his wife led to his wife's
signature purportedly being forged by others.
23
Thus, the failure to file the
24
mistaken understanding of
25
continue the trial date and allow Defendants
pretrial
Defendants' couiisel that
conference
statement was
because the
due to the
parties would
to file a cross-claim against certain third
26
parties, Defendants would not have to file a pretrial conference statement.
27
Defendants' failure was not the result ofany malice, devious intent, or bad faith failure
28
to comply with any court order. Thus, Defendants' failure to file a pretrial conference
8
1152634.2

#:1201
statement was a result of "excusable" neglect on the part of
as a result the default judgment should be set aside.
OF THEIR COUNSEL
default can be set aside for "all other reasons that justifies relief." Some courts treat
extreme or "gross" attorney negligence as an "extra-ordinary" circumstances justifying
relief under Rule 60(b)( 6). An unknowing client should not be held liable on the basis
of a default judgment resulting from an attorney's grossly negligent conduct."

(9th Cir 2002).
Community Dental Services v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164,1 169
11
of
Here, the mistake was. the belief
Defendants' counsel that the trial date would
12
be postponed, and therefore, Defendants' counsel believed that a pretrial conference
13
statement would not be necessary. Defendants should not suffer the Draconian result
14
of a default judgment wherein the Loan proceeds in the sum of $250,000 are forfeited,
15
and also be required to pay in excess of$58,000to Plaintiffs under 15 USC 1635(b)
.
:
ot
Rule 60(b)(6) that a
In addition to Rule 60(b)(3), there is a catch all provision of
10
en
SHOULD NOTBE LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE
iv. DEFENDANTS
:r
Defendants' counsel, and
0
'"
..
'"
..
,.
..
v,
;,
0
z'"
statement. Here, the totality
16
due to their counsel's failure to
17
of circumstances warrants setting aside
18
Defendants under Rule 60(b)(6).
19
v. CONDUCT OFDEFENDANTSORDEFENDANTS'COUNSELDID
file a
pretrial conference
'"
the
default judgment entered against
FRAUDULENT OR INTENTIONAL
20
NOT
21
CONDUCT THAT
22
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
23
Rule 60(b)( 4) states that the Court can provide arelief from a judgment if the
24
RISE
TO
THELEVELOF
WOULD.
ENTRY .OF.DEFAULT AND
WARRNT
judgment is void.
25
cases or enter defaults. However,
The court has the inherent power to dismiss
26
there are limits to the court's inherent power. In this regard, the court in Televideo
27
Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826F.2d 915,916-917 (9th Cir. 1987) states that the court
28
has inherent powers to dismiss cases or enter default judgments for failure to
9
1152634.2

#:1202
1
.I
prosecute, contempt of the court, or abusive litigation practices. Roadway Express,
Inc. v. Piper 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980). However, there are limits to the court's
,.
;)
inherent power to do so. The need for the orderly administration of justice does not
permit violations of due process. See Phoceene Sous Marine, s.A. v. Us. Phosmarine,
Inc., 682 F.2d 802,805-06 (9th Cir.1982) (recognizing that wilful deceit and conduct
utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice would merit the
imposition of severe sanctions, but
stating that he was too il to attend trial-was unrelated to the merits of
10
finding
the controversy
the sanction was inconsistent with due process. The decision was based principally on
the notion that a party should not be deprived of his opportunity to defend based on
11
factors unrelated to the merits of
:r
12
Seaboard Corp., 666 F.2d 414,416-17 (9th Cir.1982) (finding that a default
ot
13
against the defendant for failure to pay
14
an order to give a deposition was punitive and
'"
'"
15
could not presume that the case lacked
;,
0
z'"
16
.
:
en
0
'"
..
'"
..
,.
..
~
0
0
because defendant's deceit-falsely
that
Exchange Commission v.
his case.); Securities and
udgment
defendant had complied with
a fine when the
a violation of
due process as the court
merit); Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409,413-14
(1897) (finding that courts may not strike an answer and enter a default merely to
'"
17
punish a contempt of court unrelated
18
Couii's inherent power to enter default should
19
conduct of a party that impedes one's fight to conduct
20
merits of
21
be based on some type of "fraudulent"

discovery and
the case. See, Securities and
Exchange Commission v. Seaboard
which
lead to the
Corp., 666
F.2d at 416-17.
22
Here, the Court entered default against Defendants based on the Court's
23
conclusion that Defendants violated
24
conference statement. Pacer
25
merits of case). These cases state thatthe
to
certain
court orders and failed to file a pretrial
Docket No. 115. However, for the reasons
set forth
above, Defendants' failure to comply with the Courtorder was not intentional and was
26
merle the result of inadvertence of their counseL. Especially
27
pretrial conference statement, such a failure was a result of the mistaken belief that the
28
trial date would be postponed to allow Defendants to file a cross-complaint. In light

10
1152634.2
as to the failure to file a

#:1203
their due
of
process right to defend against the claims asserted by Plaintiffs based on the factors
unrelated to the merits of the case. The cases identified above hold that even a
conduct that may be in contempt of the court would not warrant a default being
the totality of
the circumstances, Defendants should not be deprived of
entered against that party if
the case. Phoceene Sous Marine,
unrelated to the merit of
s.A. v. Us. Phosmarine, Inc., 682 F.2d at 805-06; Securities and Exchange
Commission v. Seaboard Corp., 666F.2d at 416- 1 7. The conduct
"fraudulent" and utterly inconsistent with the
has to be
orderly administration of justice.
Defendants respectfully state that their inadvertence in this case does not rise to
10
the level of intentional conduct that relates to the merit of the case that would warrant
11
would be violated if the default
entry of default. Thus, Defendants' du.eprocess rights
:r
12
and default judgment are not set aside.
ot
13
VI. FOR THESAMEREASONSTHATTHEDEFAULT JUDGMENT
.
:
en
0'"
..
'"
..
..,.
14
SHOULD
'"
'"
15
DEFAULT. SHOULD
;,
0
z'"
16
On
~
0
0'"
~
17
August
BE SET. ASIDE
THE ENTRY OF
UNDER RULE 60(b),
RULE .55(c)
BESET ASIDE UNDER
entered
23, 2010, the Court
default
to Defendants. The court can
as
standard for
set aside the entry of default for "good cause.." Inthe9thCircuit, the
18
"good cause" to set aside the default is the same standard as the "excusable"
19
negligel1ce .stanciarciiincierRule6Q(i:)(l) t()setasicietheJiicigl1el1t. TQl Group Life
20
Insurance Plan v. Knoebber,244 F.3d 691, 696
21
(9thCir. 2001).
In this regard, the 9th
Circuit has
expressed
a strong judicial preference for
22
adjudication on the merits.SeeMendozav. Wight Vineyard Management, 783F .2d
23
941, 945-946 (9th Cir. 1986). Rule 5S(c), provides in
24
shown the court
25
been entered, may likewise set it aside in
may set aside an entry
full
of
default
accordance
and,
if
that: "For
a judgment
good cause
by
default
has
with Rule 60(b) ."
26
Because the standard is the same under RuleS 5( c) as Rule 60(b)( 1), for the
27
reasons state above, Defendants respectfully request that the default entered on August
28
23, 2010 be set aside.

11

1152634.2

#:1204
i
1
VII. CONCLUSION
For on the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court
2
3
grant their Motion, and set aside the default that was entered on August 23, 2010 and
the default judgment that was entered on September 15, 2010.
DATED: October 5,2010
ADORNO YOSS ALVARADO & SMITH

By: lsi S. Christopher Yoo

JOHNM. SORICH
S.CHRISTOPHER YOO
ms1!BS\~e6es1~lJ~A. and CHASE
10
HOME FINANCE LLC
11
:r
12
ot
13
.
:
en
0
'"
..
'"
..
,.
..
14
'"
'"
15
;,
0
z'"
16
~
0
0'"
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
i i 52634.2

#:1205
OF S.CHRISTOPHERYOO
DECLARATION
I, S. Christopher Yoo, declare as follows:
1. I am a member with the law firm of Adorno, Yoss, Alvarado & Smith, a
Professional Corporation, attorneys of record
Finance LLC ("Chase
and Chase Bank USA, N.A. ("Chase Bank" and
Home")
collectively "Defendants") in the above-captioned action ("Action"). I have been duly

admittedto practice law in
herein for defendants Chase Home
the
State of
and
California
this District.
before
2. I am submitting this Declaration in support of the Motion to be Relieved
as a witness in this matter, I am
from Default and Default Judgment. If called
10
competent to testify of my own personal
11
to the matters set forth in this
the best of my recollection, as
knowledge, to
Declaration.
:r
12
ot
13
foreclosure sale of
14
2010, the Court further ordered
15
Subject Property. Pacer DocketNo.94. OnJanuary 4,2010, Plaintiff
16
for contempt against
17
Pacer Docket 99. However, in its OrderofJanuary26,2010, the Court recognized
18
that the foreclosure wasre-initiatedwithoutanyfaultofDefendants. The Court stated
.
:
en
issued a preliminary injunction enjoining
3. On August 3, 2010, the Court
the SubjectProperty.PacerDocketNo. 45. On November 17,
0
'"
..
'"
..
,.
..
:i
."
;:
'"
'"
~
0
;,
0z
'"
0
Defendants to actually
Defendants
and
cancel foreclosure
of the
filed a motion
Loanstarfor there-initiation of the foreclosure.
'"
Chase Bank USA,N.A.andChaseHomeFinanceLLC have
19
in its Order, "Defendants
20
submitted to the Court evidence that
21
cancel the foreclosure sale and
22
16, 2009, their counsel sent an email. to
23
Court had ordered cancellation of all foreclosure. proceedings
24
cancel the sale." Pacer Docket
25
26
they
order to
took measures to comply with its
proceedings. Specifically, on November
any related
notifying Loanstar that the
Loanstar' s counsel,
and instructing them to
No. 105.
4. The second foreclosure was initiated
on June 28, 2010
but rescinded on
July 8, 2010 - TWO days after Paul Nguyen contacted Defendants' counseL. This
27
inadvertence by Defendants was remedied
28
Plaintiffs. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" isa true and correct copy of
within six
days of
the Notice of
1

1152634.2
being contacted by

#:1206
Rescission ofNotIce of uefault executed on July 8, 2010 by NTIex West LLC and
County Recorder's Office. In tct, this issue was resolved without the necessity of
any Court intervention.
5. My office did contact Judge Wistrich's clerk, and provided available
:r
number 2010000328766 with the Orange
recorded on July 12,2010 as instrument
dates to Mr. Nguyen November 16,2009. Attached hereto
dated November 16, 2009 to
as Exhibit "B" is an email

From
Mr. Nguyen.
then on,
due to
inadvertence,
my
the actual settlement conference was not scheduled prior to May 31, 2010. This
failure was my fault. However, this issue was addressed with Mr. Nguyen at his
to schedule a date for a
10
deposition on May 27, 2010, and my office attempted
11
settlement conference up to the time of the Scheduling Conference on
12
August 23,
2010. However, judge Wistrich did not want to schedule a settlement conference once
:?
en
13
the deadline to complete the settlement conference
14
was my inadvertence by not filing a status report regarding
'"
15
conference. However, this was an oversight, and
;,
0
z'"
16
to either offend the Court or to take improper advantage in
17
of a settlement conference
18
November 2009 to August 2010. In fact, both
ot
had
passed
as of
May 31, 2010. It
'"
..
'"
..
,.
..
~
'"
the status of a settlement

not
or maliciously
done intentionally
litigation. In fact, the issue
'"
Mr. Nguyen. on. an. ongoing basis from
was discussed with
Mr. Nguyen and I concurred that it
19
would make sense to engage in a settlement conference once a cross-claim/counter-
20
claim was filed and the third parties were brought into the lawsuit. The case was in
21
active discovery during the. Spring of 201 0, including
22
until the depositions of Plaintiffs in late May 2010 that it became apparent that there
23
were other parties who were dismissed by
24
the acts giving rise to Plaintiffs'lawsuit. This information is offered
25
explanation, not an excuse.
26
Plaintiffs who
may bear responsibilty for

as
an
the failure to complete the settlement
Responsibility for
conference lies with our office, not the Defendants.
27
28
written discovery, and it was not
6. On May 27, 2010, PaulNguyen's deposition wastaken, and on May 28,

2010, the deposition of
Laura Nguyen was taken per the parties' agreement because

2
1152634.2

#:1207
Mrs. Nguyen was not available for deposition on May 21, 2010, as originally noticed.
After the depositions, it became apparent that the other parties besides Defendants
may be responsible for the alleged forgery of
documents. Based on Plaintiffs' deposition testimonies, it became apparent that
Joseph Cao Son Tran, Angel Tran, Sydney Funding, and Nexus Escrow, Inc. may be
responsible for possibly forging Ms. Nguyen's signature. Thus, on May 27, 2010, my
7
8
9
10
the title
("Fidelity") to seek indemnification for forgery. A true and correct copy of
claim letter is attached hereto as
has not
Exhibit "C." Unfortunately, to date, Fidelity
yet accepted the title claim. I was.hopeful that Fidelity would accept the title claim,
and
:r
12
Defendants of
ot
13
to Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
office immediately made. a title claim
11
.
:
en
Laura Nguyen's signature on certain loan
assume the defense of
Defendants'
this actionin place of
the unnecessary burden of incurring
and relieve
counsel
costs in this
attorneys' fees and
action.
'"
..
'"
..
,.
..
..
'"
~
0
;,
0
z'"
14
May 28, 2010, Plaintiffs repeatedly agreed to stipulate to continue
7. Since
15
the trial date to allow Defendants
16
Angel Tran, Sydney Funding,
17
expressly acknowledged
18
Failure to Prosecute, andPlaintiffs'UnilateralPretrialConference Statement, iiii 10-
19
18. Pacer Docket No. 108.
to
and
file
across-claim against JosephCao Son Tran,
Nexus
Escrow, Inc. This
agreement by
Plaintiffs is
'"
20
in Plaintiffs'Responseto Order
8 In fact,
on August 17, 2010,
to Show
Paul
Cause
("OSC") Re:
Nguyen sentan email to my attention
his intention to agree to a stipulation to continue the trial date and
21
again reiterating
22
leave for Defendants to
23
Nguyen's email of August 17,2010 is attached hereto as
24
August 19, 2010, I forwarded
file a cross-complaint. A true and correct copy of Mr.

Exhibit "D." In response, on
to Plaintiffs the
proposed cross-complaint
and the
25
proposed stipulation to continue the trial.date. Because Plaintiffs had objections to the
26
proposed cross-complaint, on August 20, 2010, I forwarded the revised cross-
27
complaint.
28
9. Up to the date of
the Pretrial Conference on August 23,2010, I believed

3
1152634.2

#:1208
that the trial date would be postponed to allow Defendants to file a cross-complaint
against certain third parties so that the entire matter could be resolved in one lawsuit.
The failure to file the pretrial conference statement was due to my mistaken
understanding that the parties would continue the trial date and allow Defendants to
prosecute the cross-claims. Our office's failure to file a pretrial conference was not
the result of any malice, devious intent, or bad faith failure to comply with any court
order.
10. Attached hereto as Exhibit "E" is a true and correct copy of an email
9
10
11
dated August 31, 2010 from Paul Nguyen setting forth all loan payments made by him
under the subj ect loan. As indicated in the August 31, 2010 email, the last payment
12
:r
C
:?
en
ot
December 17,2008.
made by Plaintiffs under the subject loan was on
of the State of California and
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws
13
the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
14
Executed on October 5, 2010at Santa Ana, California.
0
'"
..
'"
..
,.
..
"z
f-
'"
'"
;,
0
z'"
15
16
0
'"
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
1152634.2

#:1209
EXHIBIT A

Comment:
Station Id :YUUP
#:1210
Branch :FOl,User :A052
Recorded InOfficial Records Ora.nge County

Tom Daly, Clerk-Recorder
9.00
2010000328766 11 :28am 07/12/10
Recording requested by:

LSI Tille Company
217405 N38 1
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
When Recorded Mail To:

NDEx West. L.L.C.
15000 Surveyor Boulevard, Suite 500
Addison, Texas 75001.9013
APN #: 107-903-44
Property A.ddress:
16141 QUARTZ ST
WESTMINSTER, CALIFORNIA 92683
111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111~I11111111111111111111111111
RND20100187502242
Sp.1ci: 3bvl th~ line ror Rccorderls; usc only
Title Order No.: 100378592
Trustee Sale No.: 20100187502242
NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF NOTICE OF DEFAULT

NOTICE IS HEHEY GIVEN THAT: NDEX WEST, LLC us agent for the beneficiary under a Deed of
Trust dated l20712007, executed by PAUl. NGUYEN AND LAUnA NGUYEN,
obligations in favor of CHASE RANK USA, N.A., as Beiiel1cilry Hceorncdon
12112/2007 as Instrument No.
2007000731120 of offcial records in the Offce of the Recorder of ORANGE
County, California describing
as Tiustor, to . secure certain
land therein as more fully described on the above referenced deed of trusC
Whereas, the present beneficiary under that certain Deed of Trust herein above described, recorded a Notice of
Default and Election to Sell. Said Notice was R~corded on 06/2R/2010 as Instrument No, 2010000303698 in
the offce of the Recorder of ORANGE County. California, of omcial records.
NOW; THEREFORE, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT: the present Beneficiary andlor the Trustee,
and/or the agent of the Trustee, does hereby rescind, cancel and withdniw siid Notice of Brcach and Notice of
Default and Election to Sell; it being understood, however, thar this rescission shall nol in any manner be
coiistn.ied as waiving or alTecting any breach or defaultnisti present or tunire under said Deed of Trust, or as
impairing any right or remedy thereunder, but is, and shall be deemed to be, only
an election, without prejudice,
not t(1 cause a sale to be made pursuant to said Notice, and shall no iviy jcopardize or impair any right, remedy or
privilege secured .to the Beneficiary
and/or the Trustee, under said Deed of Trust, nor modifY nor
alter in any
respect any of the terms, covenants, conditions or obligations thereof, and said Deed of Trust and all obligations
secured thereby are hereby reinstaied and sh,,1I he and rei",iin in fmce and effcct the same as if said Notice of
Breacli and Notice of Default and Election to Sell had not been made and given,
DATED: 07/08/20iO
By: Randy MidC:leton
Page lof1
FCUS_NOR_NOD.rpt- (05112110) I Ver-12
ORANGE,CA
Document: RE 2010.328766
Page 1 of 1
Printed on 8/11/2010 12:56:22 PM

Station Id :YUUP
Comment:
#:1211
Branch :F01,User :A052
Recorded In Official Records, Orange County

Tom DalYJ Clerk-Recorder
9.00
2010000329423 03:34pm 07/12/10
Recording requested by:
LSI Title Company
217405 N38 1
When Recorded Mail To:
0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
NOEx West, LL.C.

15000 Surveyor Boulevard. Suite 500
Addison, Texas 75001-9013
APN #: 107-903-44
Propert Address:
16141 QUARTZ ST
WESTMINSTER, CAUFOllNIA 92683

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1~I11111111111111111111111111
RND20100187502242
Space above ih~ line for Rccurdcr';: ui-c only
Title Ordcr No.: 100378592
Trustee :'hile No.: 20100187502242
NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF NOTICE OF DEFAULT

NOTICE is HEllEBY GIVEN THAT: NnEX WEST, LLC "' ,gent for the beneficimy under a Deed of
Trust dated 1210712007, executed by PAUL NGUYEN ANn LAURA. NGUYEN. as. Trustor. to seeurecertain
obligations in favor of CHASE BANK lJSA,N.A., as Beneficiary Recorded on iiiiil2007 as Instrument No.
2007000731120 of offcial records in the Offce of the Recorder of ORANGE County, Caliornia describing
land therein as more fully described on the above referenced deed trust.
of
Whereas, thc present beneficiary under that certain Deed of Trust herein above described, recorded a
Notice of
Default and Election to SelL. Said Notice was Recorded on 0612812010 as Instrument No. 2010000303698 in
the omce of the Recorder of ORANGE County, California, of oftcini records.
NOW; THEREFORE. NOTICE is IlEREBY GIVEN THAT: the present Beneliciary nnd/or the Trustee,
andlor the agent of the Trustee, does hereby rescind, cancel and withdrmv said
Notice of Breach and Notice of
Default and Election t Sell; it being understood, however, that this resdssion shall nt in any
construed as waiving or affecting any breacb or default past, present at future under
manner be
said Deed or Tnist,or as
impairing any right or remcdy thereunder,but is, and shall be deemed to be, only an clection. without prejudice,
not to cause a sale to he made pursuant to said Notice, and shall no way jeopardize orinipair nny right,
remedy r
privilge secured .to the Beneficiary and/or the Trustee, under said Deed of TlUst, nOr modify nor alter in any
respect any
of the terms, covennnts, conditions or obligations thereof, and said Deed of Trust and all obligations
secured 'hereby are hereby reinstated and shall be and remain in force lind effect the same ~s if said Notice of
Breach and Notice or Default and Election to Sell had not been made and given.
By:
Randy Midc;le~on
Pa~e I of I
FCl!S_NOR_NOD.rpl - (05/12110) / Vcr-12
ORANGE,CA
Document: RE 2010.329423
Page 1 of 1
Printed on 811112010 12:56:22 PM

#:1212
EXHIBITB

#:1213
Christo her Yoo

From:
Sent:
paul wynn (mnapauI1@gmail.coml

Monday, November 16, 20098:25 PM
Christopher Yoo
kermitd marsh@yahoo.com
Re: Paul Nguyen v. Chase (AI109.964)
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Except for January 7, 2010, all other dates are opened for me. Please let me know time, date and location. I
believe Judge Matz required Notice Filing of this date also.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Christopher Yoo ~cyoo("adorno.com? wrote:
and
s clerk and she
me the
available dates
settlement conference:
January 7,11,14,21, and 28,2010.
Let us know if
are heard at 3:30 pm.
these dates work for you or you would like additional dates in February or March 2010.

#:1214
XHIBITC

#:1215
CALIFORNIA
1 MacArthur Place
Suite 200
Santa Ana, California 92707
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
MASSACHUSETIS
MISSOURI
Phone: (714) 852-6800

Fax: (714) 852-6899
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
www.adorno.com
TEXAS
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Tuyet T. Tran
(714) 852-68DD
ttran@adorno.com
May
27, 2010
VIAFEDEx
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
Attn: Claims Department
17911 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 300

Irvine, California 92614-6253
Re: Policy No.: 27-041-06-22145
Order No.: 30146667

Borrowers: Paul Nguyen and LauraNguyen
Property: 16141 Quartz Street, Westminster, California 92683
NOTICE OF TITLE CLAIM
Dear Sir or Madam:
to represent Chase Bank USA,N.A. ("Chase Bank") and

and inmaking a
lawsuit
the below-referenced
Home") in
Chase Home Finance LLC ("Chase
is the original named insured under
claim under the above-referenced title policy. Chase Bank.
Title Insurance issued on December 13,2007 under Order Number 30146667
the Loan Policy of
Fidelity
National Title hsurance Company ("Fidelity").
("Policy") by
This finn has been retained
obtained
Paul Nguyen and Laura Nguyen (collectively "Plaintiffs")

of
Bank for the sum of $250,000 ("Loan"). The deed

the real property commonly lmownas 16141
Quartz
trust securng the Loan

Street, Westminster, California
as
a loan from Chase

and encumbering
92683
instruent number 2007000731120
("Subject Property") was recorded on December 12, 2007
in the Orange County Official Records ("DOT"). The DOT identifies Chase Bank as the lender,
and Piaintiffs as the borrowers.
enforceability of the DOT is being disputed by
._____~Eiaintiffsjn.JLiaw.suit fi1Qdinfu~JJnitedSJ.at~s Central Distrigt Court andentitled,J-=aul Ngiy,l?l'_
As explained below, the validity and
and Laura Nguyen v. Chase BnkUSA, N.A., et al.,Case No.CV09-4589 AHM (AJWx). A
the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which is the operative complaint, is enclosed
copy of
for your reference in regard to the title claim stated in this letter.
1130552.1

#:1216
ADORNO Yoss ALVARADO & SMITH

May 27,2010
Page
According to the allegations in the SAC, Plaintiff
Laura Nguyen's signature was
purortedly forged onto the DOT and other documents related to the Loan. See, SAC,,r,r 49-57.
against
Plaintiffs subsequently defaulted on the Loan and foreclosure proceedings were initiated
the Subject Property.
Based on the purported forgery, Plaintiffs have fied the SAC alleging claims for "fraud
by forgery," "rescission and damages pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1635, etseq.," "damages pursuant
to 12 U.S.c. 2607," "unfair business practices," "quiet title," and "preliminary injunction."
the DOT due to the alleged forged signature on the
See, SAC. In short, Plaintiffs seek to rescind
pursuant to the
allegations, and
DOT and other documents related to the Loan. Based on these
Fidelity
defense of this action to
terms of the subject title policy, Chase Bank hereby tenders its
losses sustained by Chase Bank as a result of the claims made
and requests indemnity against all
by Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, CLAIM is HEREBY MADE to Fidelityon the above-referenced title

policy that Fidelity (i) provide a defense for Chase Bank in the lawsuit and against all such
losses resulting from the
claims asserted in the lawsuit and (ii) indemnify Chase Bank for all
claims made in the lawsuit.
Upon your receipt of this Notice of Claim, please contact the undersigned to
Fidelity wil honor its
policy and accept this claim.
acknowledge Fidelity's receipt of this claim and to let us know whether
Sincerely,
ADORNO YOSS ALVARO & SMITH

ii
'/..'~Ur____
"j; V .V
Tuyet T. Tran
Enclosure
1130552.1

#:1217
Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahiv1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2,J1",09 Page 1 of 21
FILO
1 PAUL NGUYN
NGUYN
LAUR
2 16141 QUARTZ STREET
WESTMISTER, CA 92683
3 TELEPHONE: (714) 360-7602
2009HOV 23 PM 2: 00
CLERK i u.s. DiSTRICT COURt
CEHTR At D1sr. onrA lifo
LOS ANGELES
4 Plaintiffs
In Pro Persona
BY
6
7
8
UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
i'
1 1
12 PAUL NGUYEN, an individual; and

LAURA NGUYEN, an individual,
13
Plaintiffs,
14
v.
15
16 .
17
Chase Bank USA, N.A.; Chase Home

finance, LLC; First American Loanstar
Trustee Services; Joseph SonCao Tran,
18 an Individual; and DOES 1 through 50,

inclusive,
19
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20' Defendants.
21
22
COMES NOW, Plaintiffs PAUL NGUYEN AND LAURA NGUYEN

23
24
(hereinafter "Plaintiffs" or "NGUYEN") file this civil action alleging that their
II
26
ii
27
II
28
SECOND VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahl";-AJW Document
96 Filed 1112..;i009 Page 2 of 21
#:1218
INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF CONTROVERY

2
3
1.
Tnis is a Truth-in- Lending ('TILA") and Real Estate Settlement Procedure AC
4
("RESPA") case in which Plaintiff
enter into a loan and PAUL NGUYEN and his wife LAUR NGUYEN
executed a deed of trst encumbering their home ("Mortgage Loan") through the
7
use of
Paul Nguyen was fraudulently induced to
unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation ofthe Truth-in-
Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, as well as state
laws. Fraudulent representations concerning the payment terms of the Mortgage
10
enter into the
Loan were made to the Plaintiffs to induce PAUL NGUYEN to

1 1
i i
disclosures in relation to the Mortgage
Mortgage Loan. In addition, material
12
Loan, required pursuant to the Truth-in-Lending Act and its implementing
13
Procedures Act
Regulation, and required pursuant to the Real Estate Settement
14
and its implementing Reguiation, were concealed from the NGUYEN. Nor were
15
notices of
the NGUYEN provided with a proper number of
16
17
the transaction within the time period required by law, all in violation of
PLAINTIFFS' clearly established Tights under federal and state. statutory and
18
Bank USA N.A., and/or its agent,
common law. In addition, Defendant Chase
19
intentionally forged the signature of
20
21
their right to cancel
Plaintiff
LAURA NGUYEN onto the Deed
of Trust and other documents related to the Mortgage Loan with the intention of
knowing
from
harming the Plaintiffs as part ofa scheme to prevent the Plaintiffs
22
prior to entering into that
the true term and conditions ofthe Mortgage Loan
23
from rescinding the Mortgage Loan
Mortgage Loan and preventing the Plaintiffs
24
conditions of
if and when they ever discovered the true terms and
25
the MOligage
Loan by using the forged Deed of Trust as the basis for arguing that the
26
... YlaintiifLJight tQ. re~c;ind th~~M2ijgag~ Lq(.!li:I!gerJederal J:~VI~h~g~~pir!a:
27
28
- 2-

Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-AhlV1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2,J/2009 Page 3 of 21
#:1219
2.
This action seeks rescission ofthe Mortgage Loan and statutory, compensatory,
the NGUYEN's federal and
and punitive damages to vindicate the violation of
state rights.
3.
punish and set example for the wrongful conduct in violating federal and state
6
7
The NGUYEN also seeks punitive damages against the Defendants in order to
laws resulting in injury and damages to the NGUYEN.

4.
The NGUYEN also seeks reasonable costs oflitigation, including, but not
limited to, attorneys' fees.
10
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1 1
L i
5.
12
13
This action arises under 15 U.S.C. 1635,12 C.F.R. 226,15 U.S.C. 2601
and 2614, 12C.F.R. 3500, and under California statutory and common law.
6.
14
This Cour has jurisdiction over the Federal c1aimsin this action based on 18
U.S.c. 1331 and 1343 and 42 U.S.C. 1983 which confer original
15
address the deprivation of rights
jurisdiction on federal distrct courts in suits to
16
Cour also has supplemental jurisdiction over the
secured by federal law. This
17
are
pendant state law claims becausethe state law claims
18
or controversy under Article III of the
claim that they form part of the same case
19
20
United States Constitution, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.

7.
21
involved real propert is located in the Central District of California. Therefore,
23
venue properly lies in this District, pursuant to 12 U.S.c. 2614 and 28 U.S.C.
24
26
27
The unlawful conduct, ilegaLpractices, andactscomplainedQf alleged iiithis

complaint were all commtted in the Central Distrct of California and the
22
25
so related to the federal
1391(b).
II
II
II
28
- 3 -
SECOl\TJ VERIFIED AMENDED COMPLAINT

#:122096 Filed 11/2.)12009 Page 4 of 21
Ca v 2:09-cv-04589-hivl-JW Document
PARTIES
2
3
Plaintiff
8.
Plaintiff
PAUL NGUYEN and LAURA NGUYEN are resident ofVvestminster,
California, and the real propert secured by a deed of trst under the Mortgage
Loan is located in Westminster, California.
6
7
8
10
Defendants
9.
thereon allege, that Defendant Chase
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and
Bank USA, N.A. (hereinafter "Chase Bank") is a national banking institution

whose exact business form is unknown and at all times mentioned herein was
conducting business in California. Plaintiffs a informed and believe that
1 1
.l.l
the Mortgage Loan.
Defendant Chase Bank is the owner of
12
13
10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant Chase
Home Finance LLC ("Chase Home Finance") is a wholly owned subsidiary of
14
conducting business in
Chase Bank and at all times mentioned herein was
15
California. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant Chase Home
16
the Mortgage Loan.
Finance is the servicer of
17
18
1 1. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant First
American Loanstar Trustee Services ("Trustee Services") whose exact business
19
herein was conducting business in
form is unr-..own and at all times mentioned
20
California. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendant Trustee Services
21
the
is the subsequent trstee of
22
23
Mortgage Loan and
27
Chase Bank.
Cao Son Tran, a licensed real estate broker and Notary Public which licenses
Real Estate, at all time mentioned
were issued by the California Department of
26
agent of
12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant Joseph
24
25
an
herein acting on behalf ofhil1self, Sydney Funding, Nexus Escrow and Realty
. Savers.andis_auJlent a~1illg on behalf of Chase Ban, was conductil1g~"L~11~a~.
in California.
28
-4-

#:1221
C e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahl\l-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2012009 Page 5 of21
1
FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
licensed real estate
or about October 2007, Joseph Son Cao Tran was a
13. On
Real Estate and
broker which license was issued by the California Departent of
employed by REALTY SAVERS, also a California licensed real estate company

who operated under a California designated licensed broker, Nguyen Paul Tuan,
7
8
Paul Nguyen that he was properly
Plaintiff
14. Joseph Son Cao Tranrepresented to
to herein.
referred
and happenings
at the time of the events
licensed under California laws asa mortgage broker and possessed expertise as a
10
to serve as Plaintiff
that qualified
mortgage broker in real estate lending
11
and to
Nguyen's mortgage broker,
find aresidentialmortgage loan best suited to
12
Plaintiff
financial
Paul Nguyen's
Paul
to explain to
situation and needs, and
13
Plaintiff
mortgage loan.
the details of any proposed residential
14
Paul Nguyen to fill
out the
15. Defendant Joseph Son Cao Tran assisted Plaintiff
15
loan application and met with Defendant JosephSonCao Tran multiple times to
16
17
offices.
18
never
16. Defendant Joseph Son Cao Tran
19
20
21
at Defendant REALTY SAVERS'
documents
provide him with the requested
provided Plaintiff
PAUL NGUYEN with
"Good Faith Estimate" ofloan cost.
l7. On or about November 21,2007, Defendant JosephSonCao Tran represented to

Plaintiff PAUL NGUYEN that he and his company has secured a loan through
22
Defendant Chase Bank.
23
18. Plaintiff
Paul Nguyen
24
iather than as joint tenant with Plaintiff
25
19. On or about December 7, 2007,
26
loan as an individual
agreed to proceed with the mortgage
Laura
Nguyen.
Defendaiit JosephSon Cao Tran asked Plaintiff
. _.~~~Faul~Nguyellto--.ome_to..exus~EscIQw JO_~sigILmQitgg.ge ClQG.lmel1 ts :__.___...
27
28
- 5 -
SECOND VERIFIED AMNDED COMPLAINT

#:1222
Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahiv1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2.:12009 Page 6 of 21
20. Up to December 7, 2007, Defendant Joseph Son Cao Tran didnot provide
Paul Nguyen with any document related to the mortgage loan.
Plaintiff
121. Neither Defendant Joseph Son Cao TrannOl SYDNEY FUNDING disclosed the
4
5
relationship between SYDNEY FUNDING and NEXUS ESCROW to Plaintiff.

22.
6
7
December 7, 2007 to signed mortgage documents.

23.
PAUL NGUYEN appeared at Defendant NEXUS ESCROW on
Plaintiff
did not appear at NEXUS ESCROW to sign
LAURA NGUYEN
Plaintiff
documents, nor was requested to do so.

24.
10
loan, also appeared at NEXUS ESCROW and acted as notary public of
11
PAUL NGUYEN.
documents that signed by Plaintiff
12
25.
13
Paul Nguyen executed a promissory note and security agreement for
Plaintiff
that purpose, which transaction is a consumer credit transaction within the
14
TIL
meaning of
15
26.
16
17
Plaintiff
A, 15 U.S.c. 1602 andRegulationZ 226.2.6.

note and security
never executed a promissory
Laura Nguyen
agreement for that purpose.

27.
On
Plaintiff
Laura
never appeared before a notar public, Joseph Son Cao
Laura Nguyen
20
Tran or received two
signature of
Trust.
Nguyen to the Deed of
28.
forged
January 2009, Plaintiffs discovered
or about
18
19
aranging the
Defendant Joseph Son Cao Tran, acting as a licensed broker in
(2)
Right to Cancel from any person
copies of a Notice of
'" 1
"' 1
22
or entity, or from the notary.

29. Plaintiff Laura Nguyen are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that all
23
Plaintiff
purported signatures of
24
25
26
Laura Nguyen that were affixed on mortgage
loan is forgeries which included the deed of trust in connection \vith the
Mortgage Loan and were affixed on said documents by Defendants.
.30.;-A-&-a-fesult.Gf.the.~f.ailure-of.Chae-tQ-pm:v:ide-alLoLthedisclsllIes.r.equired hy_
27
state and federal law, and as a result of
the false, fraudulent, and/or deceitful
28
- 6-

#:1223
C e 2:09-cv-04589-Ah!v1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/02009 Page 7 of 21
1
the Mortgage
representations made tothePlaintiffsconceming the tenus of
2
3
Loan, Plaintiffs are entitled to rescind the Mortgage Loan.

31. On April 6, 2009, Plaintiffs sent via U.S. PosIcertied mail, notified Chase of
their rescission of the loan under TILA and offer to tender. Additional copies
were also sent via U.S. Post certified mail to Chase Home Finance LLC, c/o
First American Loan Star Trustee Services and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA clo
7
8
Chase Home Finance LLC.

32.
13, 2009, Plaintiffs again sent via U.S. Post certied mail,
Again, on April
under TILA and offer to tender.
notified Chase of their rescission of the loan
10
33.
thereon allege, that the Defendant
believe, and
Plaintiffs are also informed and
11
disclosing the Truth-in-
its agents conspired to withhold
and one or more of
12
by federal law and that, in furtherance of
Form required
Lending Disclosure
13
Nguyen's signatures on the
Laura
Plaintiff
conspiracy, the Defendant forged
14
Deed of
15
16
17
18
19
34. That the Mortgage loan entered into is a federally related mortgage loan as that
at 12 U.S.C.
Estate Settlement Procedures Act
the Real
term is defined in
2602(1).
35. Defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A.; Chase Home Finance, LLC; First American
Loanstar Trustee Services; and Joseph Son Cao Tranare individuals and
20
22
provide applications for
36. In addition to acting as the mortgage broker andChase's agent in the transaction
Mortgage Loan, Sydney Funding and Sidney
resulting in the entering into of the
24
Tran also acted as
the SettlementAgenttli.lOughits wholly owned subsidiary
25
NEXUS ESCROW in
27
and
home mortgage to consumers.
23
26
credit
offer or extend
businesses that regularly
ri i
.. 1
signatures.
and ratified such forged
Trust or authorized
said
connection
with
the
consuIlationand closing of the
~~~~~~Mortgage-Loan.~~Nei1beLy-dney-Funding,jts~J2iincil)als nor Cliase ~~L ..~ .~.~~......
disclosed to the Plaintiffs thatthe entity acting as Mortgage Broker would also
28
. 7 -

#:1224
C e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahiv1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/()l2009 Page 8 of 21
1
be acting as the Settlement Agent and would be receiving fees and other fuds in
the final
connection with such role at any time prior to the delivering of
4
5
Settlement Statement to Plaintiff after entering into the lv10rtgage Loan.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Chase gave and
value
Sydney Funding accepted and received fees, payments and other things of
6
7
in return for the referral of the Mortgage Loan by Sydney Funding to Chase.
Such giving accepting of the settlement agent fees and other things of value in
8
return for the referral of
10
1i
12
violation of 12 U.S.C. 2607(a).

37. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that Defendant Joseph Son Cao Iran
acted as broker in arranging such mortgage loan ilegally acted as notary public.
38. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that because of the
13
forgery of
14
because of
15
16
the Mortgage Loan by Sydney Funding to Chase was in
Plaintiff
Laura Nguyen's signature to one or more documents, and
the failure to deliver required form under Truth-in-Lending
Disclosure to the Plaintiffs prior to the closing of the Mortgage Loan, the value
services
of Sydney Funding's mortgage brokeringservices and its settlement
17
18
provided by its wholly owned subsidiary, Nexus Escrow, was $ 0.00. Plaintiffs'
further allege that, since Sydney Funding and its subsidiary were paid and
19
received a fee from Chase as mortgage broker in excess of$lO,OOO.OO, such
20
payment to Sydney Funding and its subsidiary represented payment for services
" 1
"' 1
22
23
24
25
26
that were not actually performed in violation of 12 U.S.C. 2607(b).

39. The acceptance of fees from Chase by Defendants SYDNEY FUNDING, Sidney
Tran, NEXUS ESCROW, John Nguyen and Joseph Son Cao Tran for
performing broker services that were not actually performed and Chase's
payment of that fee for broker activities represents an unlawful kickback and/or
-.uBgamed-fee-uuder-RSEAbe.cause_tlie.amQllnt received by these Defen~(l?-t~
27
28
-8-

#:1225
C e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahlvl-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/L,)J2009 Page 9 of 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
and paid by Chase was not reasonably related to the performance of lawful
services.
40. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon alege, that Chase should have
mown that Sydney Funding, Sidney Tran, Nexus Escrow, John Nguyen, and
Joseph Son Cao Tran did not earn the broker fees because common industr
practices are that lenders follow underwting standards that demand a review of
know that
originations by mortgage brokers and, therefore, lenders typically
10
1 i
12
13
14
15
16
brokers have performed the services required and in a lawful manner. Plaintiffs
are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that if Chase had reviewed the loan
origination documents properly, either before or after the closing of the

Mortgage Loan, Chase would have learned of the obvious indications that
Sydney Funding was not properly performng its role as a mortgage broker.
41. Plaintiffs also allege that neither Sydney Funding, Sidney Tran or Joseph Son
Cao Tran ever offered Plaintiffs the option to pay a lower amount of settlement
fees and charges in addition to failing to disclose to Plaintiffs that Sydney
Funding would also be performng services as the Settlement Agent through its
17
connection with the Mortgage Loan and Joseph Son
wholly owned subsidiary in
18
at the time of settlement.
Cao Tran would also be performng notary services
19
42. The agency responsible for enforcing RESPA. and its implementing regulation,
20
Regulation X, the United
21
22
23
24
States Department of Housing and Urban
Development ("HUD"), issued a Statement of Policy in 1 999 establishing two -
part test for determning the legality of certain lender payment to mortgage
brokers under RESP A as follows:
(1) Vlhether goods or facilities were actually furnished or the servi ces were
25
actually furished or the services were actually performed for the
26
...... ---oompensatioll-paid,-and;----
27
28
-9-

#:1226
Ca 2:09-cv-04589-Ahlvl-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2.JI009 Page 10 of 21
1
(2) Whether the payments are reasonably related to the value of the goods or
2
facilities that were actually furnished or services that were actually
performed.
43. In 2001, BUD clarified its interpretation of 2607(a) and (b) when it issued its
5
Policy 2001-1 entitled Clarification of
RESPA Statement of
Policy 2001-1.)
Concerning Unearned Fees Under Section8(b). ("Statement of
BUD's 2001- 1 Policy of Statement explains that the second prong of its two-part
test to determne the legality of lender payments to mortgage brokers may not be
10
satisfied when the loan brokers does not offer the borrower the option to pay a
ii
lower amount of total fees upfront.

44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Chase and others
13
knowingly and wilfully conspired and agreed among themselves to commt the
14
acts described of
15
16
herein with the intent to deprive Plaintiff of an amount to be
deteni1Ined and proven at trial but in an amountthat exceeds $ 15,000.00.

45. Plaintiffs. are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Chase andits agents
17
did the acts and things herein alleged
18
conspiracy and
19
Policy
1999- 1 Regarding Lender Payments to Mortgage Brokers, and Guidance
12
Statement of
46.
pursuant to, and in furtherance of, the
above-alleged agreement.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe,
and thereon allege, that Chase and its agent
20
or lend aid and encouragement to, or
furthered the conspiracy by cooperation

" 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
ratified and adopted the acts of each other.

47. As a proximate result of the nrongful acts herein aleged, Plaintiffs has suffered
damages in an amount to be determined and proven at trial but in an amount that

exceed $15,000.00.
48. In conspiring and acting in concert as herein alleged, Chase, either directly or
... . ... ..throughth-GGnduct,authoriz;ation~or~ratification..y_a Chase~QfficeL~din:~ctQi'9I.
managing agent, acted wilfully and with the intent to cause injury to the
28
- 10 -

#:1227
Ca 2:09-cv-04589-Ahlv1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2..I009 Page 11 of 21
conscious
malice, oppression, and/or fraud in
Plaintiff. Chase is guilty of
disregard of the Plaintiffs' rights, thereby waranting an assessment of punitive
damages in an amount appropriate to punish Chase and to deter others from
engaging in similar conduct.
6
FOR
FIRST CLAIM
Defendant Chase,.Joseph.SonCao Tran,
(Against
and DOES 1 - 50 for Fraud bv Fon!ery)

49.
by reference in this Claim for Relief each
Plaintiffs re-al1egeand incorporate
10
above.
allegation set forth in paragraph 1 through 48
11
RELIEF
50. On or about December 7,2007, Chaseand/or its agents intentionally forged
12
13
15
Plaintiffs.
51. The forgery by Chase and/or its agents was undertaken as part of a scheme to (i)
16
prevent
terms
the true
Plaintiffs from knowing
17
18
19
terms and
that the
21
22
believe, and
52. Plaintiffs are informed and
thereon allege, that Chase and/or its
23
Laura Nguyen on the Deed
agents knew that (i) forged signatures ofthe Plaintiff
24
other dOCll'Tents related
25
forged signatures
27
MortgageLoan
Plaintiffs' right to rescind the
had expired.
under federal law
of Trst and
(ii) preventing Plaintiffs
by using the forged deed of trust as
conditions of thel'v1ortgage Loan
the legal basis for arguing
conditions of the Mortgage
when they ever discover the tre
and
from rescinding the Mortgage Loan if
and
and
Mortgage Loan
Loan prior to entering into that
26
Trust and other
Mortgage Loan with the intention of harmng the
documents related to the
14
of
Laura Nguyen onto the Deed
the Plaintiff
signature of
of
to the Mortgage Loan, or (ii) knew of the
the Plaintiff on the DeedofTrust,cOl1spired to defraud the
.._...Plairitiff~-f0F.thereason-that.the Jorged.signatuesoLthe_P-lajntiff LflJJraJig1lY~lL..

on the Deed of Trust and the other documents related to the Mortgage Loan were
28
- 11 -

#:1228
Ca 2:09-cv-04589-Ahlv!-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2JI009 Page 12 of 21
undertaken to further the fraud of concealng from the Plaintiffs the true teims
2
and conditions of the Mortgage Loan and to thereafter create and unlawful
Plaintiffs in the
defense to any attempted rescission ofthe Mortgage Loan by the
event the Plaintiffs discovered the tre terms and conditions of the Mortgage
6
7
federal law.
53.
The forgery
of
Right to Cancel were made with the
addition to failure to provide Notice of
intent to deceive Plaintiffs and to deprive them of their rights under California
10
and federal law.

54.
12
Laura Nguyen' signatures and
Plaintiff
At the time that the forgeries of
concealment from PlaintIff of the tre terms and conditions of the Mortgage
13
Loan, Plaintiffs were unaware of the fact that her signature had been, or were to
14
Trust and other documents related to the Mortgage
be, forged on the Deed of
15
16
Trust, in
Laura Nguyen's signature on the Deed of
Plaintiff
11
rescission under California and or
their rights of
Loan and attempted to assert
Loan and were unaware of the tre terms and conditions of the Mortgage Loan.
55.
the
Plaintiffs relied to their detriments onthe aforementioned concealment of
17
Mortgage Loan which concealment was
tre terms and conditions of the
18
the
effectuated by the withholding of
19
disc1
0 sure under
the Truth-in-Lending as
required by federal1aw and by forging the Plaintiffs' signatures on said Deed of
20
Trust for the fraudulent purpose of
21
using the forged Deed of Trust as a basis for
Plaintiffs oftheIr legal rights pursuant to California and federal

the
depriving the
22
law in the event the Plaintiffs learned the true terms and provisions of
23
Mortgage Loan.
24
56.
the signature of
Chase and/or its agents intentionally forged
25
Deed of
26
Trust and
the Plaintiff on the
to the Mortgage Loan proximately
other documents related
. .. ... .resulting-in.ha.sli.f.feredby.beth;Plaillti:tIs.-..~~~-~..~.~ ...... .~~
27
28
- 12 -

#:1229
Ca 2:09-cv-04589-Ahlvl-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2:.i009 Page 13 of 21
57. The aforementioned acts, omissions, and fraud by forgery conducted by Chase
and/or its agents alleged above were fraudulent, malicious and oppressive
conduct which subjected Plaintiffs to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious
4
disregard of
Plaintiffs' rights, and constituted despicable conduct by said
Plaintiffs' rights, so as to
and conscious disregard of
Defendants with a wilful
justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages against said defendants.
7
SECOND
RELIEF
CLAIM FOR
8
and
(Against Defendant Chase,
Pursuant to .12U .S.C. .1635, et.seg.)
10
58. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference in this Claim for Relief each
11
above.
allegation set forth in paragraph 1 through 57
12
59. The Mortgage Loan is subject to the federal Truth-in-Lending Act and its
13
implementing regulation, Regulation Z, becausethe Borrower under the
14
Mortgage Loan, Paul Nguyen, is an
15
individual and not a corporation,
partership, or other entity, and because llaintiffPaulNguyen used the loan

purposes, and because the amount
16
proceeds for
personal, family, or household
17
borrowed was, and is, subject to a
18
finance
charge and
is to be repaid in 5 or more
installments, and because the Mortgage Loanis secured by Plaintiffs' principal
19
dwelling. Furthermore, the lvlortgage Loan is not subject to any of the
20
and Regulation Z and it was
exemptions set forth in the Truth.:in.:Lending Act
22
Damages
DOEST - 50forRescission and
not a loan for business purposes.

160.
23
24
Because of
the
Mortgage Loan is subject to the Truth-in-Lending Act and
Regulation Z, Chase and its agents were required to deliver tothe Plaintiffs,
Right to CanceL. Chase and
among other things, Good Faith EstIiiiate,Notice of
25 I its agents failed to deliver the required
disclosures and Right to Cancel to
26 I
2 71-- .~~~Plajntiffbaura-Nguyen-;~.-~~ . . ... ... ..... ...~--_.. . . ~~_._~~~~~
161. Therefore, the right to rescind the Mortgage Loan is extended to three-years.
28
- 13 -

#:1230
Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-AhiV-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2~I009 Page 14 of 21
62.
Chase Home Finance, and Trustee Servces of rescission of the Mortgage Loan
and tender under such rescission.

63. Chase, Chase Home Finance, and Trustee Services failed to take actions as
required under the Truth-in-Lending Act and Regulation Z upon receipt of
6
7
laws by noify Chase,
Plaintiffs exercised its rights under California and federal
rescission of the Mortgage Loan.
64. As a direct and proximate result ofDefendants failure to take action in response
Rescission, Plaintiffs suffered damages in an
to Plaintiffs' proper Notice of
amount to be proven at tral.
10
FOR
THIRD CLAIM
RELIEF
11
Chase
(Against Defendant
12
for
13
65.
Home
Pursuant tol2 U.S.C. 2607)
Damages
reference in this Claim for Relief each
Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by
14
64 above.
allegation set forth in paragraph 1 through
15
66. The Mortgage Loan is a federally related mortgage loan and is subject to the
16
and
federal Real Estate Procedures Act (RESPA)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
its implementing regulation,
Regulation X.
67.
Paul Nguyen sent a Qualified Written
On or about April 8, 2009, Plaintiff
Request ("Qw'R") via U.S. Post Certified lvfail with return receipt to Chase
Home Finance, LLC.

68. The return receipt indicated that the QWR was delivered to Chase Home
Finance, LLC on April 8, 2009 and received by J 00 Cowans.

69. The QWR contained information to enable Defendant Chase Home Finance,
24
LLC to identify Plaintiff
25
DOES 1 - 50
Finance,LLC, and
Paul
Nguyen's
loan
and also contained request for
information of the loan, specifically accumulated late charges and fees despite
.----- 26 _ .----Platntiflsvali-NticeofRescission-of.tli.e-lofrIl-fIldofferto-teIlGer.-
27
28
- 14 -

#:1231
Ca 2:09-cv-04589-Ahl\l-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2;'1009 Page 15 of 21
70.
requested Defendant Chase Home Loan, LLC as servicer of the loan to make
necessary correction to the loan such as late charges and fees, accounting of
payment made to date and costs associated with foreclosure so that proper
7
8
the rescission and
The QWR notified Defendant Chase Home Loan, LLC of
rescission tender of the loan can be made.

71. Furthermore, Plaintiff requested Chase Home Loan, LLC to make proper credit
reporting reflecting Plaintiff's pending Notice ofRescIssion.

Plaintiff's QWR.
72.
Defendant Chase Home Finance, LLC never responded to
73. Because the Mortgage Loan is subject toRESPA and Regulation X, all
10
Defendants were required to comply with Section 6 of RESP A appearing at 12
11
6 violations
U.S.C. 2605. Section
12
13
by Regulation X and 24
are further defined
C.F.R. 3500.21 (e) as "Duty ofloan servicer to respond to borrower inquiries."

74.
14
Chase Home Finance violated Section
of
Regulation X upon receipt of
Plaintiffs' Qualified Written Request("QWR") including but not limited to:

Plaintiff's Qualified
15
upon receipt
a. Failure to response and take action
16
of
Written Request as required by laws.
17
18
charges orpenalties, and transmit to the
including the crediting of any late
19
the correction.
borrower a written notification of
20
c. Failure to
protect
the borrower,
corrections in the account of
b. Failure to make appropriate
Plaintiffs'
credit rating
upon
receipt of Plaintiffs
"QWR"
21
by continuing to fuish adverse information regarding payment to credit
22
603 of
reporting agencies as defined in section
23
24
Act, 15 U.S.C. l681a.
75.
As a direct and proximate
25
by Chase Home Finance,
26
the Fair Credit Reporting
result of the violations ofRESPi~A and Regulation X
Plaintiff suffered damages in an amount to be proven
, . 1
dl lHdi.
27
28
- 15 -

#:1232
C e 2:09-cv-04589-AhIVl-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2ol009 Page 16 of 21
RELIEF
1
FOURTH
CLAIM FOR
2
3
(Against Defendant Chase, Chase Home Finance, LLC; Joseph Son Cao Tran;
Practice - Business
to CaliorniaUnair Business
and DOES 1 - 50 Pursuant
4
5
and Professions 17200 et.seq.)
6
7
8
allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 75 above.

77. Defendants have falsely, fraudulently and deceitfully represented to the
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs as aforesaid which representations were relied upon by the
9
the Mortgage Loan and to the damage of
resulting in consummation of
10
i1
Plaintiffs
in violation of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, as afmesaid.

Finance LLC violated the
78.
These Defendants along with Chase, Chase Home
12
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act as set forth herein and the allegations of
13
14
which are hereby incorporated in this cause of action by this reference.

79. These Defendants acted in concert with Chase forged the signature of Plaintiff
15
Trust.
Laura Nguyen onto the Deed of
16
80. Such unfair, fraudulent and deceptive acts and omissions, and violation of state
17
law are unfair business practices and constitute a violation of California
18
common law and California Business & Professions Code i 7200, et seq.
19
Plaintiffs reserve the right to identify additional unfair, fraudulent, or deceptive
20
practices, or unlawful or unfair practices, by Defendants as may be established
21
22
through discovery.
81.
As direct and proximate result of
23
describe above, as well as the result of
24
25
the unfair, fraudulent, and deceptive conduct
their unlawful and unfair business
practices as described above, this Defendant has been and wil be unjustly
enriched.
26
.82 ;-piain-f'f-s,pursuaIlt-to-CalifOll1ia-Riisinss&llQIessiQilsC~de 1 7 ~Q~,_s.~eJ~ an_...
27
order of
this Cour enjoining these Defendants from further withholding and
28
- 16 -

Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-AhIVl-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2,:I009 Page 17 of 21
#:1233
1
Plaintiffs as a
due to the
property
monies, funds and
confiscating any of the
result of the unfair business practices alleged herein, and compelling this
Defendant to:
for all funds unfairly, unlawfully,
a. Make restitution to Plaintiffs
5
and
fraudulently, and deceptively obtained
retained by all Defendants
identified herein and/or its agent as a result of the wrongful acts as alleged
common law and California
of California
herein and their violation
Business &Professions Code l7200etseq.; and

9
acquired and retained by all Defendants identified
b. Disgorge all revenues
10
herein and/or its
the unfair, fraudulent, deceptive,
agent asa result of
11
unlawful business
practices
herein; and
alleged
12
c. To take steps
and sufficiently necessary to rescind
and actions reasonably
13
and
the Mortgage Loan and to void any
all
deeds of
14
Mortgage Loan.
documents pertaining to the property securing the
15
83.
Plaintiffs are entitled
of
to restitution
their property (tangible and intangible) and
16
money
funds
and funds, as that propert, money and
17
wrongful actions and
18
19
21
wrongful actions
22
27
identified herein and/or its
complete remedy for Defendhl1tsindentifiedherein and/ori ts agent's
and conduct, including without limitation, injunctive relief,
restitution, and restoration of their unencumbered title interest in the real
23
26
Defendants
84. Plaintiffs also seek such additional equitablereliefas may be necessary to

provide a
25
alL
existed priorto the
agent.
20
24
conduct of
trst or other legal
property.
, 85.
as
Pursuant to federal1aw, Defendants indentifiedherein, acting
a lender, owed
statutory duties to the Plaintiffs.

-86;--Bespite-the-statutoi:dut-ies-Owed-io-the-PJaintiffs,Defendants id~J1ifie(:Ll1tieilJ_
violated those statutory duties and, as a result thereof, took advantage of its
28
- 17 -

Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahlv1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2012009 Page 18 of 21
#:1234
relationship with the Plaintiffs and has been, and is being, unjustly enriched
2
3
thereby.
87. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of fiduciary duties, these
Defendants have been unjustly enriched, and the Plaintiffs have been damaged
in an amount in excess of$25,000.OO.
88. These Defendants, in commtting wrongful acts described herein, acted with
malice, fraud, and oppression toward Plaintiffs, in a conscious disregard of
8
Plaintiffs' rights.
9
FIFTH
10
FOR
CLAIM
RELIEF
(Against Chase, First American Loanstar Trustee Services
il
and
DOES 1-50
For QUIET TITLECaL.CodeCiv.Proc. 761.010 et.seq.)
12
13
1 through 114 above.
allegation set forth in paragraphs
14
American Loanstar Trustee Services wrongfully
90. Defendants Chase and First
15
16
claim an interest in the Property.

91. The Property's legal description is:
17
8977, IN
LOT 44 OF TRACT NO.
18
THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ASPER MAP

47 OFIVnSCELLANEOUS
19
RECORDED IN BOOK 369,PAGE(S)46 AND
20
COUNTY
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
21
COUNTY.
22
23
Assessor's Parcel No.: 107-903-44
92. Plaintiffs claim title to the Property and seek an order from the Court confirming
24
25
their title.
93. Chase and First American Loanstar Trustee Services claims title to the Property
26
27
RECORDER OF SAID
.by-vrttie-oforged-deed-of-trw;t-andvoided-deed-oLtrust-------94.
this complaint.
A determination is sough as of the filing of
28
- 18 -

#:1235
Ca 2:09-cv-04589-Al-IVl-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2ji2009 Page 19 of 21
95. Plaintiffs pray for a determnation of their ttleagainst adverse claim.

2
RELIEF
FOR
SIXTH CLAIM
3
and Trustee
(Against All Defendant Chase,
4
5
INJUNCTION)
96. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference in this Claim for Relief each
allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through95 above.

97.
this Court,
Plaintiffs move
pursuant to Rule
12
Civil
to encumber the Plaintiffs interest in that propert. In support of their Motion,

the Plaintiffs state as follows:
suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the Defendants
a. The Plaintiffs wil
14
should
16
Federal Rules of
in the NGUYEN residence located at 1614 i Quartz Street, Westminster, CA or
13
15
the
any interest putatively held by the Defendants
from taking any action to transfer
11
65 of
Injunction against the Defendants enjoining them
Procedure, for a Preliminary
10
PRELIMINARY
Services For
transfer any interest
in the NGUYEN
property;
b. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law should the Defendants affect

such a transfer;
17
c. Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims;
18
d. The balance of the hardships tips decidedly in favor of granting the
19
requested injuncIon, inasmuch
20
21
22
as the cost to
the Defendants of enjoining
any such transfer is negligible when compared to the potential harm the
Plaintiffs face if they lose their dwelling and property prior to these
proceedings ending.
23
24
25
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray forjudgment against these Defendants, as to all
causes-factions~arlo-ilDws--------- . -- - --- --- --27
1. For general and special damages according to proof;
28
- 19 -

#:1236
Ca e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahlv1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2,.)I009 Page 20 of 21
1
2. For exemplary and punitive damages;
2
3
3. For Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs necessar to obtain these
relief;
the Mortgage Loan;
4. For rescission of
Trust in connection with the Mortgage Loan.
5. For an order voiding any Deed of
6
7
6. For permanent injunction against this Defendant, its subsidiary, affiliates,

employees, and all persons
successors, agents, servants, officers, directors,
9
10
acting in concert with them, directly or indirectly, from engaging in the

improper, unlawful, unfair, fraudulent, and/or deceptive conduct as descried
above and according to proof;
1
7. For an order of
restitution requiring this Defendant to disgorge all revenues
12
unlawful, unfair,
acquired from Plaintiffs by means of
13
14
15
16
17
18
fraudulent and/or
deceptive acts or practices as more fully described above and according to

proof;
8. For prejudgment interest as allowed by law;
9. For an order that this Defendant involuntary trstee for the proceeds and
property resulting from Chase and/or its agent's wrongful actions of all
acquired by them;
money, proceeds and propert wrongfully
19
lO.For declaration and order that this Defendant release and re-convey any deed
20
of trst or other document signed or entered into and subsequently recorded in
21
Mortgage
connection with the
Loan;
22
trst and any other document signed or
11 .For an order voiding any deed of
23
entered into by either or both of
24
25
26
27
the Plaintiffs in connection with the mortgage
loan;
12.For an order requiring this Defendant to return allI1ol1ies, proceeds, payrreiits,
.. funds,-revenues,-f-ees-and-theJike-acquiredIromeitheLPlaintiff(l~UlI~Sl11t QfQ:r
arising from the Mortgage Loan;
28
- 20 -

#:1237
C e 2:09-cv-04589-Ahiv1-AJW Document
96 Filed 11/2012009 Page 21 of 21
return of any loan proceeds;
13.For an order Forfeiture of
2
3
l4.For statutory damages according to proof;

is .For costs of suit herein incured; and
4
5
just and proper.
as this Court may deem
16.For such other and further relief
Dated: November 21,2009
6
7
8
9
10
11
LauE%~
12
13
14
VERIFICATION
15
16 I verify that the foregoing Verified Second Amended Complaint has been
are true and
17 reviewed by me; and that the allegations therein
correct to the best of my
18 knowledge, information, and belief.
19 I declare under penalty of peijury that the foregoing is true and correct.
.~
20 Executed in Westminster, California on November21, 2009.

21
22
23
24
u_--t~-
25
26
.. .. ,
27
28
- 21 SECOND
VERIFIED AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Page 1 of 1
(800)683-7648
ovemitooxpres .m - MSIE
8.0
Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW
Document
131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 51 of 57 Page ID
#:1238
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I111I11I111111
20383A1D07 ~\/1
Next Day Overnite .. P
Zone:105
Bill To:20393 Date: 5/28/2010
From:
Lisa West
Alvarado, Smith - Santa Ana

1 MacArthur Place
Ste:200
Santa Ana, CA 92707
9499556800
Billing Reference:AL 109.964
To:Fidelity National Title Insurance
Company
Claims Department
17911 Von Karman Avenue
Ste:300
Irvine, CA 92614
9999999999
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Number of Pieces: 1
Please fold this page in half and place it in the pouch on your shipment. Only one copy is required by Overnlte Express.
WARNING; Use only the printed label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes Is fraudulent and could resuil In additional
billing charges, along with cancelalion of your Overnite Express account or OverniteShip Online Profie. Shiprnents with invalid account or credit card
numbers wil not be delivered.
httos:/ /WViW. overniteexpress.com/ overni teshiponline/ direction! shipmentform. aspx
5/28/2010

#:1239
EXHIBITD

#:1240
Christo her Yoo
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Paul Nguyen (mnapauI1@gmail.comJ

Tuesday, August 17, 20104:38 PM
Christopher Yoo
mnapauI1@gmail.com
Re: Nguyen et.al. v. Chase et.al Confirmation of our telephone discussion
08117/2010
Dear Mr. Yoo: Than you for your time discussing various issues relating to this case.
1. Per our discussion, your co-counsel Tuyet T. Tran is preparing the stipulation to continue trial and leave for
Defendant Chase to file cross-complaint against others on thc issue of forged deed of trust and acknowledgment
of Notice of Right to CanceL. As indicated, I am wiling to such stipulation. This stipulation needed to be done
as soon as possible because of
trial date is scheduled for
09/09/2010.
2. I also informed you that I've unilaterally fied plaintiffs' pre-trial conference statement because your crosscomplaint has not been filed since 05/22/2010. Furthermore, because of the delay in cross-complaint tobe fied
by you, the court has set an OSC Re dismissal for failure to prosecute the case and I have no choice but must
response to the Court's OSc.
3. You informed me that Chase has filed its claim with title insurance for the forged documents.
4. Your office wil contact magistrate judge and schedule as soon as possible date for mediation and I wil
make myself available to accommodate whatever date magistrate judge is available.

5. I reminded you of
the final pre-trial conference on August 23,2010.
6. I also informed you that I had a discussion with Mr. Marsh, counsel for Mr. Joseph Tran and I will dismiss
Mr. Tran from this action. However, you indicated that Mr. Tran may be subject to cross-complaint by you.
Should the substance of our conversation is different, Please inform me as soon as possible.
Best Regards
Paul Nguyen

#:1241
EXHIBITE

#:1242
Christo her Yoo
From:
Paul.NguyenlmnapauI1@gmail.comJ
Sent:
Tuesday, August 31,20109:02 AM

Christopher Yoo
Re: CV09-4589 Meet and Confer Re. default judgment on Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint
To:
Subject:
Mr. Y 00: Per your request, accounting of payment to Chase Home Loan as followed:
For the period of January 2008 - July 2008: Monthly payment of$I,998.08
09115/2008: Payment of$4,000.00
10114/2008: Payment of $1,998.08

11/13/2008: Payment of$I,998.08
12117/2008: Paymentof$I,998.08
Total payment over the period was: $23,980.80
Regards
Paul Nguyen
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Christopher Yoo .:cyoo@adorno.com? wrote:
I need your accounting of all payments made to Chase.
S. Christopher Yoo
Attomeyat Law
Santa Ana Offce

Adorno Yoss Alvarado & Smith
il (714)852-6800
1 MacArthur Place, Suite 200

Santa Ana, CA 92707
ai Fax: (714) 852-6899

r? cyoo()adorno.com
il Direct
(7l4) 852-6868
~:.~YY~:.Jt~lgrn.Q...(QJn
NOTICE: CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION - This email may contain

corrlidential and privileged inaterial for the sole use of the intended reeiperi(s). Any review,
use, distribuiin or diselsure by others is strictly prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient
(or authorizcd to receive for the recipknt), please contact the sender by reply email am! delete all
copies of this mcssage.
IRS CirculUl' 230 Disclosure: '1'0 insure compliance with requirements by the fRS, we inform you that
any U.S. tax advice contained in this eommunication (including any attachments) is not intended or written
to be used, and cannot be used. for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties nnder the Internal Revenue Code

#:1243
OF SERVICE
PROOF
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
USA, NA.,etal.
PaulNguyen v. Chase Bank
USDC entralCase No. CV09-4589 AHM(AJWx)
4
I am einPloyed
in
the
of
County
Orange, State of
\fd~SALViAfiKt~~~iI:ii~~ca~tlitir1Yla~~:iS~rit:lri~s~lo~O
On October 5,2010, I served the foregoing document described as

DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ALTER OR
AMEND JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT THEREOF on the interested parties in this action.
by
placing the originaland/or a
true
enclosed in (a) sealed
copy thereof
envelope(s), addressed as follows:
10
SEE ATTACHED.
LIST
SERVICE
11
REGULAR
~ BY
t:
12
Tdeposited
in
such envelope
13
I am "readily
the
at 1 MacArthur
mail
mailed. with postage thereon
fully prepaid.
0
'"
..
'"
..
,.
..
MAIL:
Place, Santa Ana, California. The envelope was
en
ot
familiar" with the
practice of collection and processing
firm's
~~~~s~;f~lth6...~iclih:jY%~tifJ~6tBB~i~s~.wlt~~~w~t~'.th~t..~~....~6ti~~.6f\li~at
14
~
'"
'"
;,
0
z'"
0
'"
the age
over
California. I am
is
meter date
16
than
WAS..PRODUCED
17
D
D
date
of
in affidavit.
deposit for mailing
ON
PURCHASED..AS.RECYCLED.
PAPER
BY..
Tele-Faxed
copy of
above facsimile numbers.

OVERNIGHT
Express or Federal Express
20
California 92707. The envelope
(Federal) I declare
this Court, at whose direction the
23
Drop13oxJocatedat 1
that I amemployed.intheoffice.of a member of

service was
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1087365.2
Ana,
fees thereon fully
MacArthur Place, Santa
was deposited with delivery
made.
Executed on October 5, 2010, at Santa Ana, Ca ifornia.
24
the original document
MAIL: .1depsItedschdc11eritsttheOVrriite
prepaid.
21
22
day.after
one (l)
BYFACSIMILEMACRINE: 1
to the
19
more
BY.THE.ACTOFFILINGORSERVICE,.THATTHEDOCUMENT
18
postage
party served, serviceispresumedinvalidifpostalcancellationdate or
15
the Bar of

#:1244
SERVICE. LIST
Paul Nguyen v. Chase Bank USA,NA., et at.

USDC Central Case No. CV09-4589 AHM (AJWx)
(714) 360-7602-telephone
r~~~!1g~~~n
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
i
:
16141 Quartz Street
Plaintiffs in ProPer
Westminster, CA 92683
T. Robert Finlay Esq.

Christina Daniell e Rovira,
Esq.
Wright Finlay & Zak LLP

Court, Suite 280
Newport Beach, CA92660
4665 MacArthur
Kermit David.Marsh, Esq.

Kermit D. MarshLaw Offices
9550 Warner Avenue, Suite 250
Fountain Valley, CA92708
(949).477- 5050-telephone
(949).477-9200- facsimile
Attorney forUefendant, First

(714).593-2321 -telephone
(714) 593..2399-facsimile
Attorney forUefendant, SonCao Tran

aka
12
Loanstar Trustee Services
American
Doe
en
ot
0
0
..
'"
..
,.
..
13
14
~
'"
'"
15
0'"
~
16
;,
0
z'"
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
1087365.2

Nguyen Chase Motions Rule 60 (B) and 55 Re Default Judgment

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Nguyen Chase Motions Rule 60 (B) and 55 Re Default Judgment

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 1 of 57 Page ID #:1188

JOHN M. SORICH(CA Bar No. 125223)

~aC~~si15f&kmyOO (CA Bar No.1 69442)

ADOltOYOSS ALVARADO & SMITH

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PAUL NGUYN, an individual; and

Chase Bank USA, N.A.; Chase Home

CASE NO.: CV09-4589 AHM (AJWx)

JUDGE: Hon. A. Howard Matz

Trustee Services; Sydney

Realty, Inc.; Sidney Tran, an Individual;

Nexus Escrow, Inc.; Jolm Ng~yen,an

Individual; Joseph Son Cao Tran, and

through 50, inclusive,

TO PLAINTIFFS AND ALL INTERESTED

NOTICE IS GIVEN that under Rule 60(b)

("FRCP"), on November 8, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. or as

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM DEFAULT JUDGMENT

as the matter can

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 2 of 57 Page ID #:1189

N.A. ("Chase Bank")

September 15,2010. The grounds forthe Motion are as follows:

"extra-ordinary" circumstance justifying relief

. The Judgmentis void

entering Defendants' default, as any failure to

fraudulent conduct on the

follow the Court orders was not

not relate to the merits

case. Rule 60(b)(4).

exceeded its authority in

Chase Home Finance LLC ("Chase

under Rule 60(b)(6).

Home," and collectively

entry of default on August23, 2010.

Court to set aside the

Defendants . met and conferred with Plaintiffs. on September 29,

2010 regarding the

Motion. Therefore,Defendantshaveinet the

ADORNO YOSS ALVARADO & SMITH

7-3. See, Local

By: lsi S. Christopher Yoo

msIrBS\~eEes1~lJ~A. and CHASE

HOME FINANCE LLC

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 3 of 57 Page ID #:1190

B. Court Order Issuing Injunction Enjoining Foreclosure.........................

C. Defendants' Failure to File Status Report Regarding Status of

Settlement Conference ..........................................................................4

Plaintiffs and Defendants to ontinue Trial

Date and Allow

III. DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE

JUDGMENT, BECAUSE DEFENDANTS' FAILUR TO

IV. DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE

REASONS THATTHEDEFAULT JUDGMENT

VI. FOR THE SAME

NOT RISE TO THE

lICE OF MallON AND MallON 10 DISMISS COMPLAIN I

Case 2:09-cv-04589-AHM-AJW Document 131 Filed 10/05/10 Page 4 of 57 Page ID #:1191

Bateman v. United States Postal Service,

Community Dental Services v. Tani,

282 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir 2002)............................................................................9

Employee Painter's Trust v. Ethan Enterprises, Inc.,

480 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007).............................................................................7