The Lawsuit Filed Against Thuy Huynh, Michael O'Young, and Early Hawkins

8/9/2019 The Lawsuit Filed Against Thuy Huynh, Michael O'Young, and Early Hawkins

1/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CORRECTED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Moon v. Thuy Huynh, et al.

CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MARK T. RISNER, ESQ. (SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) Attorney at Law [CA SBN: 186942]LAW OFFICE OF MARK T. RISNER1 Park Plaza, Suite 600Irvine, CA 92614

Telephone: (949) 442-8302Facsimile: (949) 442-8330

MATTHEW A. BERLINER, ESQ.Attorney at Law [CA SBN: 224384]BERLINER LEGAL GROUP100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 870Irvine, CA 92618

Telephone: (949) 698-2622E-Mail: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, BRYAN CHRISTOPHER MOON

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE,

CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

BRYAN CHRISTOPHER MOON, ) CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-an Individual, ) DF-CJC

)Plaintiff, ) CORRECTED FIRST AMENDED

) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:) ) 1. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION) AGAINST ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS) AND ALL DOE DEFENDANTS;

v. )) 2. DEFAMATION/SLANDER AGAINST) DEFENDANT THUY-DUYEN THI HUYNH

THUY-DUYEN THI HUYNH, ) AND ALL DOE DEFENDANTS;a.k.a., THUY HUYNH, a.k.a., )

THUY LI, an Individual, ) 3. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OFMICHAEL C. O’YOUNG, an ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINSTIndividual, LAW OFFICES OF ) DEFENDANT THUY-DUYEN THI HUYNHMICHAEL C. O’YOUNG & ) AND ALL DOE DEFENDANTS;ASSOCIATES, a Business )

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Entity Form Unknown, ) 4. ASSAULT AGAINST DEFENDANTEARLY M. HAWKINS, an ) MICHAEL C. O’YOUNG AND ALL Individual, LAW OFFICES OF ) DOE DEFENDANTS; and,EARLY M. HAWKINS, a Business ) Entity Form Unknown, ) 5. INTERFERENCE WITHand DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, ) PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC

) ADVANTAGE AGAINST DEFENDANT Defendants. ) THUY-DUYEN THI HUYNH AND ALL

______________________________) DOE DEFENDANTS

Assigned for All Purposes:Hon. James Di CesareDept. C-16

Complaint Filed: 03/27/14 MSC Date: 09/11/15ADR Review Hearing: 09/11/15Trial Date: 10/19/15

AN UNLIMITED CIVIL ACTION

Here comes now Plaintiff Bryan Christopher Moon, an

individual residing in the State of California (“Plaintiff or

“Moon”) and alleges as follows:

1. Moon is informed and believes and thereon alleges that

Defendant Thuy-Duyen Thi Huynh is an individual and a resident

of the State of Nevada, County of Clark. Moon is informed and

believes and thereon alleges that Huynh sometimes goes by the

aliases “Thuy Huynh” and/or “Thuy Li”.


Defendant Michael C. O’Young is an individual and a resident of

the State of California, County of Orange. Moon is informed

and believes and thereon alleges that O’Young is an attorney

licensed to practice in the State of California.



3/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-3-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant, Law Offices of Michael C. O’Young & Associates is a

business entity of unknown capacity doing business in the State

of California and located in the County of Orange.

4.

Defendants the Law Offices of Michael C. O’Young &

Associates and O’Young initially represented Huynh in the

action that forms the basis for the Malicious Prosecution Claim

for Relief.


Defendant Early M. Hawkins is an individual and a resident of

the State of California, County of Orange. Moon is informed

and believes and thereon alleges that Hawkins is an attorney

licensed to practice in the State of California.


Defendant, Law Offices of Early M. Hawkins is a business entity

of unknown capacity doing business in the State of California

and located in the County of Orange.

7.

Defendants the Law Offices of Early M. Hawkins, and

Hawkins later represented Huynh in the action that forms

the basis for this Malicious Prosecution Claim for Relief

(collectively all Defendants in this matter shall be named

“Defendants”).

8. Moon is not aware of the true names and capacities of

defendants Does 1-25, inclusive, and therefore sues these

defendants by such fictitious names. Moon will amend this


4/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-4-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Complaint to show the true names and capacities of such

fictitiously-named defendants when the same have been

ascertained. Moon is informed and believes, and based thereon

alleges, that each of the Doe defendants are legally

responsible in some manner to Moon for the sums of damages

claimed herein.

9. Moon is informed and believes, and thereon alleges,

that at all relevant times Defendants, and each of them, were

acting as agents, servants, employees, alter egos, successors

or predecessors-in interest, or each of the other named

defendants, and were acting within the course and scope of such

relationship, with knowledge and consent, either express or

implied, of the other named defendants.

10. Venue is proper in this venue as that the facts giving

rise to this action occurred in Orange County, California.

Preliminary Matters/Allegations

11. Moon has been analyzing investment opportunities for

over a decade. His specialties are deep value and risk

arbitrage – including spin-offs, mergers, bankruptcies and

restructurings. Moon also has experience in analyzing special

situations involving high yield credit, warrants, and LEAPS.

He also has experience in tracking and providing up-to-datecommentary on activist investor campaigns. Moon is the head

of an independent research service that focuses on providing


5/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-5-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

actionable investment ideas based on thorough fundamental

analysis of deep value, spin-offs, and other risk arbitrage

situations. Moon provides his clients with research profiles

representing his “best ideas” and provides ongoing commentary

and follow up. Over the last two years Moon’s stock picks have

outperformed the S&P 500 by a significant margin.

12. Because of Moon’s skill and success in business and

investments, Moon has generated a well-regarded reputation in

the business and investment community at large.

13. In the past Moon has assisted in raising capital from

investors for large-scale residential real estate developments

and commercial real estate in partnership with real estate

developers.

14. During the last seven years, Moon has been attempting

to generate investment leads, start businesses and seek capital

and investors for prospective and on-going business ventures.

15.

Moon originally met Huynh in or about the Summer of

2004 at a night club in Los Angeles, California. After meeting

in 2004, Moon and Huynh communicated with each other via e-mail

and the social net-working website entitled Myspace.com. They

communicated in this manner until approximately 2007.

Thereafter, the two began communicating again in or about

August of 2010.

16. Throughout this period of time and upon


6/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-6-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

information and belief to this day, Huynh has/was attempting to

have a modeling career. She was/is a “bikini bartender” and on

occasion promoted parties or events at local nightclubs. Huynh

promoted herself on social networking sites such as Myspace and

Facebook. However, Huynh was not widely successful in her

modeling career or promotional career.


on many occasions, Huynh has “dated” men she has met on social

networking sites and other venues in exchange for various gifts

and money.

18. Notwithstanding Moon’s prior success in business and

investments, in or about 2010 he was in the midst of searching

for new opportunities. A fact of which he informed Huynh when

they starting communicating again in 2010.

19. On or about September 2010, Moon and Huynh begun a

romantic relationship when she traveled from California to

Dallas, Texas to meet Moon. This was the first time the two

had met in person since 2004.

20. Moon and Huynh continued to have a romantic

relationship thereafter and communicated with each often via

email and social networking websites. Huynh often pursued Moon

and relished in hearing from him.

21.

On or about September 2010, Moon moved to Orange


7/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-7-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

County, California to reside with Huynh. The two then

cohabitated, sharing some expenses and costs; such as rent,

utilities, food and entertainment costs.

22.

After their brief courtship, Huynh repeatedly pressured

Moon to marry her and on or about May 18, 2011, they were

married in Orange County, California.

23. Moon and Huynh lived together for approximately 8

months; Huynh having moved out of their common residence after

just a few weeks of marriage.

24. At no time, before, during or after their marital

separation did Moon and Huynh enter into any monetary contracts

whereby Moon agreed to pay Huynh for expenses the two incurred

while married. Moreover, at no time did Moon borrow any funds

or monies from Huynh. In fact, during the course of their

relationship, Moon gave Huynh significant amounts of cash.

Moon also purchased Huynh various gifts such as high-end

designer purses, wallets, sunglasses, clothes and other items.

All exchanges of gifts and monies between Moon and Huynh were

gratuitous in nature.

25. The marriage between Moon and Huynh was nonetheless

contentious and on or about January 29, 2012, Huynh filed for

divorce from Moon in the Superior Court of the State of

California, for the County of Orange. The divorce action was


8/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-8-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

entitled [petitioner] Huynh v. Moon; Case No. 12D000915 (the

“Divorce Proceeding”).

26. The grounds cited by Huynh for the Divorce Proceeding

was irreconcilable differences. At no time during the Divorce

Proceeding did Huynh seek annulment of her marriage to Moon

based on fraud or allege fraud of any form.

27. In Huynh’s divorce petition, she listed the date of

marriage as May 18, 2011, and the date of separation as June 6,

2011.

28. On or about September, 2012, Moon and Huynh entered

into a Stipulated Judgment of the Dissolution of Marriage;

whereby the two agreed to the certain disposition of property,

monies and debt. In the Stipulated Judgment of the Dissolution

of Marriage the parties agreed that there was no community

property, nor any unpaid community obligations of any kind.

The parties also agreed that all assets before the marriage and

after the date of separation are confirmed to be his or her

separate property.

29. The Stipulated Judgment of the Dissolution of Marriage

does not reflect any claim or allegation that Moon owed Huynh

any monies, or that she alleged that Moon defrauded her in any

manner. The Divorce Proceeding and the documents filed in that

matter are devoid of any allegations that Moon defrauded or

owed money to Huynh.


9/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-9-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30. In fact, at no time during the Divorce Proceeding did

Huynh allege, to the court or Moon, that Moon owed her any

monies via any agreement between them and/or obtained money

fraudulently.

The Underlying Action and Its Dismissal with Prejudice/Judgmentin Favor of Moon

31. On or about April 24, 2012, Huynh, represented by

O’Young and the Law Offices of Michael C. O’Young & Associates,

filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California,

for the County of Orange naming Plaintiff Moon as the

defendant. The action was entitled “Thuy Huynh v. Bryan

Christopher Moon, [and doe defendants], Case No. 30-2012-

00564239-CU-BC-CJC”; (the “Underlying Action”). The Underlying

Action asserted three claims for relief against Moon for: (1)

Breach of Oral Contract; (2) Fraud; and (3) Intentional

Inflection of Emotional Distress.

32.

Moon subsequently was served with the complaint from

the Underlying Action and answered; denying all claims for

relief, allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses.

33. In the Underlying Action, Huynh, represented by O’Young

and the Law Offices of Michael C. O’Young & Associates,

alleged, among other things, that Moon falsely asserted to

Huynh that he was a successful business man, and that Moon

faked/impersonated various online personalities and individuals


10/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-10-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

on the social networking site FACEBOOK in an effort to garner

sympathy from Huynh and/or to defraud Huynh.

34. In the Underlying Action, Huynh, represented by

O’Young and Law Offices of Michael C. O’Young & Associates,

alleged, among other things, that Moon, while impersonating

various false on-line individuals, contacted Huynh to “vouch”

for Moon and his credentials.



alleged, among other things, that Huynh lent money and funds to

Moon in an amount of approximately $56,000 of which $21,000 was

allegedly evidenced by cancelled checks. Huynh alleged that

she, on one hand, and Moon on the other hand, agreed that Moon

would repay her monies she provided him.



alleged, among other things, that Moon defrauded Huynh by:

impersonating other online individuals; claiming to be a

successful businessman; falsely requesting to “borrow money”

from Huynh; and falsely “inducing” Huynh into marrying Moon.



alleged, among other things, that Moon inflicted “intentional

emotional distress” upon Huynh, on his own behalf and through


11/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-11-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“his numerous fake aliases” by sending “malicious electronic

messages” to Huynh. Huynh alleged to have suffered “severe

emotional distress in the form of public humiliation, mental

anguish, anxiety, and emotional distress.” Huynh also alleged

to have suffered from “stress, anxiety, loss of sleep, loss of

appetite, and other severe emotional distress” as a result of

Moon, in response to interrogatories propounded by Moon.

38. In the Underlying Action, Huynh, represented by

O’Young, the Law Offices of Michael C. O’Young & Associates and

Hawkins, sought compensatory and exemplary damages from Moon.

39. Prior to filing the complaint in the Underlying Action,

O’Young and the Law Offices of Michael C. O’Young & Associates

did not correspond with Moon or send him any form of demand

letter or offer to compromise the Underlying Action.

40. The service of the complaint from the Underlying Action

was the first instance that Moon was informed that Huynh

alleged, and or claimed, that Moon had caused Huynh any legally

cognizable damages, including but not limited to; (1) breach of

oral contract; (2) fraud; and/or (3) intentional infliction of

emotional distress.

41. The complaint was filed just 6 weeks after Huynh’s

family attorney in the Divorce Proceeding, Damian Fragoso,

learned that Moon was cooperating with the Internal Revenue

Service under the innocent spousal rule due to his belief that


12/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-12-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

he could be liable for Huynh drastically underreporting her

income to the Internal Revenue Service. Moon believes the

Underlying Action was filed in retaliation for his cooperation

with the Internal Revenue Service.

42. As early as May 2012, O’Young and his firm were

confronted by Moon’s counsel with a variety of factual

falsehoods/inconsistencies and/or exculpatory evidence

concerning the allegations alleged in the Underlying Action and

in Huynh’s discovery responses. Notwithstanding being

confronted by these factual falsehoods/inconsistencies and/or

exculpatory evidence, O’Young and his firm persisted in

proceeding to prosecute the Underlying Action against Moon.

43. Among the variety of factual falsehoods and

inconsistencies concerning the allegations in the Underlying

Action was the claim that Huynh “lent” Moon $56,000. This

claim was baseless and was not supported by any written

documents or competent testimony. Indeed, in Huynh’s income

and expense declaration produced in the Divorce Proceeding,

Huynh declared that her annual income was $24,000; meaning that

it was unfeasible that she had the funds to loan anyone, much

less Moon, $56,000. Moreover, the Stipulated Judgment of the

Dissolution of Marriage was devoid of any reference to Moon

owing any monies to Huynh.

44. Huynh’s claim that she “lent” Moon $56,000 was false


13/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-13-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and not supported by any evidence. Indeed, it is evident from

the documents that do exist that any monies provided by Huynh

to Moon (and even from Moon to Huynh) were gifts either before

or after the two had married. Or the money was spent in

furtherance of their marriage and romantic relationship – not a

loan. Indeed, Check No. 120 attached to the complaint in the

Underlying Action contained the following in the memo line “I ♥

You” written by Huynh.

45. In both written discovery and in deposition testimony,

Huynh repeatedly failed to reconcile her income (as declared in

the Divorce Proceeding) with the amount of funds she and

O’Young (and his firm) alleged that Huynh had “lent” to Moon.

When asked at deposition, Huynh could only testify that her

cash “loan” totaling $35,000 to Moon had been made around the

holidays of 2010. Huynh could provide no other support for

this allegation.

46.

With respect to Huynh’s allegation that Moon

“impersonated” numerous individuals online in an attempt to

garner her sympathies and support and/or to defraud her, Huynh

did not (and cannot) provide any support for said allegations.

During deposition, Huynh testified that she had proof via

“reports” and her own “forensic investigation” that Moon had

impersonated numerous people on line. However, notwithstanding

her statements about her investigation and resulting “reports”,


14/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-14-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Huynh did not provide any evidence/documents for any allegation

that Moon had impersonated people on line. This is the case

notwithstanding that said information was requested by Moon’s

counsel and which Huynh agreed to provide to Moon’s counsel.

47. Indeed, Huynh testified in deposition that she had

linked at least ten “fake” individuals/on-line personas to

Moon. However, she did not produce any documents or other

evidence to support these allegations.

48. Huynh also alleged that Moon “defrauded” her into

marrying him in order to secure financial support from Huynh.

However, in the Divorce Proceeding that was initiated to end

the marriage between Moon and Huynh, Huynh did not seek or

claim an annulment of the marriage based on fraud. Nor did

Huynh allege any damages as a result of fraud by Moon in the

Divorce Proceeding.

49. Indeed, even after Huynh separated from Moon in June

2011, and alleged that he had “defrauded her,” Huynh continued

to have sexual relations with Moon up until late December 2011.

50. Shortly after Moon was served with the complaint from

the Underlying Action, O’Young called Moon on behalf of Huynh

and as her legal representative and agent and stated that Moon

should “write a check for $150,000” or “else.” This statement

is not privileged as it was not a legitimate or authenticate

offer to compromise seeing as Huynh’s complaint in the


15/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-15-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Underlying Action only alleged $56,000 in damages. Rather,

O’Young’s call and statements therein, were a form of

extortion. This further evidences the bad faith and malice by

Huynh, O’Young and his firm.

51. As part of the Underlying Action, and through counsel,

Moon served a Demand for Bill of Particulars on O’Young and

Huynh requesting an itemized accounting of charges. Defendants

failed to respond as is required, necessitating Moon to bring a

Motion to Preclude Evidence of Account.

52. After being ordered by the Court to produce a Bill of

Particulars, O’Young and Huynh produced a defective Bill of

Particulars with ever changing dates and no itemization. Upon

requests for Further Bill of Particulars, O’Young and Huynh

produced a total of three inconsistent and hence defective

Bill(s) of Particulars.

53. In May 2012, Moon, through counsel, served

Huynh/O’Young with discovery requests and interrogatories.

Huynh refused to comply with much of the requests on

questionable grounds.

54. On or around July 2012, Huynh through counsel served

Moon with discovery request that can only be characterized as

overly broad. Requesting all emails from a relationship that

ended two years prior to Moon dating Huynh. Such as requesting


16/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-16-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

records back to 2004, a full six years before they began

dating. All in an effort to harass and burden Moon.

55. On January 4, 2013 Moon, traveled a total of 2,000

miles at the request of O’Young/Huynh for his deposition in

which O’Young asked questions of Moon for little more than 60

minutes and gathered little information. Clearly the

deposition and questioning was more than an effort to harass

and burden Moon then seek legitimate discovery.

56. Furthermore, during his deposition, Moon began

presenting evidence and information that directly contradicted

Huynh’s allegations in the Underlying Action. After being

presented with this information O’Young promptly ended the

deposition, over the objections of Moon and counsel, to prevent

the facts from getting on the record.

57. Further, throughout the litigation of the Underlying

Action, O’Young represented to others that there was little

evidence in the case to support Huynh’s claims (i.e., a case of

“he said she said”) and that the Underlying Action was brought

for the purpose of exhausting Moon’s finances.

58. Through Moon’s counsel of record, O’Young was apprised

of the many defects, improprieties, falsehoods, and

inconsistencies in Huynh’s complaint and allegations in the

Underlying Action. O’Young was also presented with exculpatory

evidence that contradicted the allegations and claims in the


17/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-17-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Underlying Action, for example the $56,000 Huynh “loaned” Moon

versus the contents of Huynh’s Income and Expense Declaration

executed under penalty of perjury which stated she only had

annual income of $24,000. Notwithstanding such, O’Young and

his firm failed to recuse themselves from representing Huynh

and continued prosecuting the Underlying Action against Moon.

59. Moreover, during the litigation itself, O’Young

comported himself in a hostile and extremely unprofessional

manner. During a break in Huynh’s deposition on April 15,

2013, unprovoked, O’Young threatened physical violence against

Moon; calling him a “Lunatic”; and screaming “I’m going to kick

[Moon’s] ass.” At that same time, unbelievably, O’Young

purposefully threw his laptop at Moon’s head and left a 6-inch

gash in the wall behind Moon. O’Young had to be physically

restrained by Moon’s counsel from harming Moon and the court

reporters dove for cover underneath the conference table. This

behavior resulted in a 911-call and O’Young and Huynh fleeing

the scene before the police could arrive.

60. Before fleeing the conference room where the deposition

was being held, O’Young yelled “ F*** You” and made an obscene

gesture at Moon. A report to the Irvine, California police

department was made. It also resulted in an imposition of a

$2,437.56 discovery sanction against O’Young and Huynh.

61. O’Young’s behavior and physical actions directed at


18/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-18-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Moon, caused Moon to incur emotional distress and mental

anguish. Moon reasonably and justifiably believed that O’Young

was attempting to physically harm Moon.

62.

Further, O’Young ordered Huynh to leave the deposition

before she was properly excused in violation of the Code of

Civil Procedure.

63. Following his violent outburst at Huynh’s deposition,

and in what Moon believes is an attempt to avoid being

sanctioned for his behavior, O’Young withdrew from representing

Huynh any further.

64. After O’Young’s withdrawal Huynh then retained attorney

Early M. Hawkins to represent her in the Underlying Action.

65. After appearing as counsel for Huynh, Hawkins and his

firm was similarly presented by Moon’s counsel with evidence of

the factual inconsistencies/falsehood alleged by Huynh and/or

exculpatory evidence that demonstrated that Huynh’s claims

against Moon lacked any merit and probable cause. Hawkins

ignored these communications and never responded.

66. Hawkins proceeded to prosecute Huynh’s claims and

allegations against Moon, notwithstanding being presented by

evidence of the factual inconsistencies/falsehood alleged by

Huynh and/or exculpatory evidence that demonstrated that

Huynh’s claims against Moon lacked any merit and probable

cause.


19/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-19-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

67. Throughout the Underlying Action, Huynh, by and through

her counsel O’Young and Hawkins and their firms, also failed

to abide by her/their discovery obligations under the Code of

Civil Procedure. Huynh, O’Young and Hawkins (and their

respective firms) failed to produce (mainly because none

existed) checks totaling $21,000 for monies Huynh alleged was

lent to Moon. Nor was there any evidence, or documents

produced, of the $35,000 in cash Huynh alleged she lent to

Moon. Huynh, by and through her counsel O’Young and Hawkins,

also failed to produce any evidence that Moon “impersonated”

people on line in an attempt to garner Huynh’s support and/or

to defraud her. This is the case notwithstanding her

deposition testimony that she had performed an investigation

and had reports of Moon’s illicit impersonations.

68. Huynh also failed to produce any credible evidence of

the “severe emotional distress in the form of public

humiliation, mental anguish, anxiety, and emotional distress”,

anxiety, loss of sleep and/or loss of appetite that she alleged

to have suffered in the Underlying Action.

69. Moreover, Huynh’s claims of “loss of appetite” and

“mental anguish, anxiety” were contradicted by hundreds of

updates on social networking sites of her eating and enjoying

herself in many social settings and parties.

70. That is because Huynh suffered from none of those


20/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-20-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

emotional and/or physical problems or maladies. Indeed,

medical documents obtained by Moon’s counsel via subpoena

suggest that Huynh’s emotional and/or psychological issues were

tied to her use of recreational drugs such as cocaine and

ecstasy. Moon believes and thereon alleges that O’Young and

Hawkins were aware that there was no medical evidence

supporting Huynh’s allegations of emotional and/or physical

injury and also that he was aware of Huynh’s recreational drug

use. Yet, even with this knowledge, O’Young and Hawkins pressed

forward with Huynh’s claims that she suffered these emotional

and/or physical ailments.

71. On or around July 12, 2013, Moon filed a Motion to

Compel on discovery requests and a Motion to Compel Further

Bill of Particulars after repeated efforts to “meet and confer”

were ignored by Huynh and her then counsel of record Hawkins.

Huynh and Hawkins failed to file any opposition or response to

the Motion to Compel filed by Moon and his counsel.

72. On or about August 14, 2013, in response to a motion to

compel filed by Moon, the Superior Court in the Underlying

Action ordered Huynh and Hawkins to produce various documents

relevant to her claims and allegations. Such documents

included, inter alia, documents evidencing Moon contacting

Huynh via various fake aliases; documents evidencing that Moon

agreed to reimburse Huynh for various living expenses in the


21/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-21-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

sum of $21,000; and documents evidencing that Huynh received

treatment from health care providers for any injury resulting

from emotional distress allegedly caused by Moon.

Notwithstanding the Superior Court’s order and various meet and

confer efforts by Moon’s counsel, Huynh and Hawkins (and his

firm) failed to produce the documents. These documents were

material and relevant to Huynh’s claims in the Underlying

Action.

73. On or about September 05, 2013, Hawkins filed a Motion

to Seal and Motion for Protective Order after failing to meet

the requirements to meet and confer. In both filings Hawkins

knowingly made false allegations against Moon. The motions

were ultimately denied. This is just another example of Huynh’s

and Hawkins’ malicious use of the judicial process to harm

Moon.

74. On September 13, 2013, counsel for Moon filed and

served a Notice of Motion and Motion for Terminating Sanction to

be heard on October 9, 2013. The Motion for Terminating

Sanctions was based on Hunyh’s failure to produce the documents

subject to the prior Order on Moon’s motion to compel. Huynh and

Hawkins did not file any Opposition or Response to Moon’s Motion

for Terminating Sanctions.

75.

On or about October 09, 2013, as a result of Huynh’s,


22/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-22-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

O’Young’s, and Hawkins’ failure to produce the documents

subject to Moon’s motion to compel, the Superior Court in the

Underlying Action granted Moon’s motion for Terminating

Sanctions against Huynh; and dismissed her complaint with

prejudice.

76. The judgment in favor of Moon and against Huynh,

emananting from Moon’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions,

reflected on the merits of the Underlying Action and Moon’s

innocence of the wrongful conduct alleged against him as well as

Huynh’s failure to prosecute her case. This ruling was a

determination on the merits of the Underlying Action in favor of

Moon. As noted above, Huynh failed to produce and evidence to

support her claims despite being ordered by the Court to do so.

Huynh also failed to file any Opposition or Response to numerous

Motions (including the terminating sanction motion) and totally

ignored several Court Orders – which is further evidence that

she was failing to prosecute the Underlying Action. This all

concluded in a ruling in favor of Moon on hi Motion for

Terminating Sanctions which reflects a failure to prosecute the

Underlying Action on behalf of Huynh and her counsel. Such a

result has been held by California Courts to constitute a

“favorable termination” for purposes of a Malicious Prosecution

Action. Finally, Huynh’s failure to appeal the dismissal of her


23/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-23-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

case reflects the obvious conclusion that her case was meritless

and filed with malice.

77. Additionally, the Court dismissed Moon’s cross-

complaint for declaratory relief (which had incorporated

the contents of Huynh’s complaint by reference) as moot.

Specifically, the Court in the Underlying Action determined that

the ruling terminating Huyhn’s affirmative complaint in the

Underlying Action was “res judicata” as to Moon’s counterclaim

for declaratory relief – hence further demonstrating that the

terminating sanction/order was a determination on the merits on

Huynh’s affirmative claims in the Underlying action.

78. On or about November 7, 2013, the Superior Court in the

Underlying Action entered judgment in favor of Moon and against

Huynh based on the prior order on Moon’s motion for terminating

sanctions. Moon was declared the prevailing party and was

awarded his costs for the Underlying Action. Neither Huynh or

her counsel brought any motion to tax costs, but rather

willingly paid them – yet another admission Huynh’s case lacked

merit and was brought without probable cause.

79. Defendants, all of them, acted without probable cause

in the Underlying Action in that there were no contracts between

Moon and Huynh, Moon did not defraud Huynh and he did not

inflict emotional distress upon her. Nor did Huynh suffer from

any of the emotional and/or physical distress she alleged in the


24/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-24-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Underlying Action. In fact, Defendants produced no credible

evidence in the Underlying Action to support Huynh’s claims for

relief as alleged in the Underlying Action or in subsequent

responses to discovery and deposition questioning. As such,

Defendants, all of them, did not, and could not have honestly

believed that there were grounds for the Underlying Action or

its continued prosecution. Moreover, Huynh’s failure to allege

any contract for monies or fraud in the Divorce Proceeding

further supports Moon’s allegations that Defendants lacked

probable cause to raise the claims in the Underlying Action and

thereafter to continue to prosecute its claims for relief.

80. Finally, O’Young’s personal conduct itself, and his

physical assault on Moon, demonstrates that he lacked any

probable cause to assert the Underlying Action and that the

Underlying Action was being prosecuted solely out of malice to

harm and injure Moon.

81.

Defendants, all of them, acted maliciously in bringing

the Underlying Action against Moon in that they had improper

motives and purpose, prejudice and a desire to harm and wrong

Moon. This malice is evidenced, in part, by the complete

failure of Defendants to produce credible evidence supporting

Huynh’s claims and allegations in the Underlying Action;

Defendants failure to abide by their discovery obligations in

the Underlying Action, the exculpatory evidence that was


25/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-25-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

provided to Defendants, the factual inconsistencies presented

to Defendants regarding the Underlying Action, Defendants

failure to dismiss the Underlying Action after being presented

with the aforementioned exculpatory evidence and factual

inconsistencies, O’Young’s statements to Moon’s counsel and

others, and O’Young’s personal conduct, such as the assault and

threats to Moon.

82. As a result of Defendants’ conduct and malicious

prosecution, Moon suffered damages such as attorney’s fees and

costs in the amount of $52,413.76 (not including interest);

emotional and mental distress and anxiety; loss of business

reputation, character and good will; and loss of business

opportunities. By way of example, the baseless claims asserted

by Defendants caused key backers to withdraw funding and/or

abandon business and investment ventures with Moon. The

Underlying Action also caused Moon to suffer emotional

distress, anxiety and depression.

83. Huynh, O’Young (and his firm), and Hawkins (and his

firm) were well aware that the Underlying Action would harm

Moon’s business interests. As a Wall Street professional and

investor, Moon informed Huynh that a fraud action could be the

death knell to his career. Moon is informed and believes and

thereon alleges that O’Young and Hawkins (and their respective

firms) were aware of this fact, and asserted, and continued to


26/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-26-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

prosecute, the baseless fraud claim in the Underlying Action

solely to improperly harm Moon and his business prospects.

Huynh’s Defamatory Statements

84.

In addition to falsely accusing (without any probable

cause) Moon of breaching any contract, defrauding her, or

causing her emotional distress; Huynh also published many

unprivileged defamatory comments about Moon on webpages, social

net-working sites and via emails/or communiqués to third

parties.

85.

From approximately February 2012 to August 2013, Huynh

made the following defamatory comments and web-posts regarding

Moon:

a. On or about February 12, 2012, Huynh created a

Facebook page entitled “Chris Moon FB Scam Alert.”

b. On that same Facebook page Huynh accused Moon of

impersonating various other individuals online.

c. On that same Facebook page Huynh accused Moon of

raising and generating money from investors for

projects and investments that did not exist.

d. On that same Facebook page Huynh referred to Moon as

a “psycho-stalker.”

e. On or about February 12, 2012, Huynh created a post

on the website “RipOffReport.com” accusing Moon of

being a scam artist and a fraud.


27/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-27-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

f. On that same posting of “RipOffReport.com” Huynh

accused Moon of impersonating various individuals

online.

g. On that same posting(s) on “RipOffReport.com” Huynh

accused Moon of raising and generating money from

investors for projects and investments that did not

exist.

h. On that same posting(s) on “RipOffReport.com” Huynh

accused Moon of having restraining orders issued

against him.

i. Huynh posted a link on the “RipOffReport.com”

website to her personal Facebook page. Huynh’s

personal Facebook page therein stated that Moon

“scammed me, don’t let him scam you” and“Christopher Moon scams Asian models.”

j. On May 25, 2012, Huynh posted on her Facebook page

that Moon was hacking her email accounts. She also

called Moon a “sociopath” and a “super obsessed

stalker.”

k. On or about May 25, 2012, on Huynh’s personal

Facebook page she stated that an ex-boyfriend of

Huynh’s hired a “cyber-detective” and that they hadlinked Moon to all these phony accounts of fake

individuals.

l. On or about June 22, 2012, Huynh posted on her

Facebook page that Moon was impersonating her then

roommate Jen Lee Tran online.

m. On or about November 15, 2013, Huynh created a

second post on “RipOffReport.com” accusing Moon of

the crime of running and operating investment scams.

n. On or about April 19, 2013, Huynh emailed Moon’s

business partner David L. White in an attempt to get


28/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-28-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

him to sever business ties with Moon. In the email

she wrote:

That Moon had scammed Huynh.

That Moon impersonated people online; and

That Moon had scammed other individuals online.

o. On or about June 4, 2013, Huynh again posted on her

personal Facebook page a statement calling Moon a

“psycho-stalker” and accusing Moon of posting

information about her tax problems with the IRS

online.

86. The above publications and words made and published by

Huynh were heard by White and various other third parties whose

names are not currently known to Moon.

87. At the time Huynh made the defamatory statements and

publications Moon was not a public figure nor making public

statements.

88. The above publications and words made by Huynh were

false or made without the reasonable belief that they were

true.

89. The above described publications and words by Huynh

were not privileged because Huynh published these with personal

animosity, actual malice, hatred and ill will toward Moon and

with either knowledge that they were false or without any

reasonable grounds for believing that they were true in that it

was false that Moon: (a) was operating any fraudulent schemes

to “scam” money from investors; (b) was impersonating

individuals online; (c) had a restraining order issued against


29/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-29-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

him; (c) was a “sociopath” and a “super obsessed stalker”; (d)

“scammed” Huynh or other Asian models; (e) was a scam artist

and/or a fraud; and (f) was raising and generating money from

investors for projects and investments that did not exist.

90. Moreover, the above described publications and words by

Huynh, are not afforded any privilege of the California Civil

Code because she is not an officer of the government; because

they were not published or spoken in connection with a

legislative, judicial or other official proceeding or

proceeding reviewable by mandate; because they were not spoken

or written by Huynh to a person who was interested in the

communication, because they were not published to a person

related to Huynh, or to a person who requested the information

from Huynh; were not published in a public journal concerning

an official proceeding or a verified complaint; and were not

written or published in a report of a public meeting or of a

matter for the public benefit. Simply put, no privilege

applies to the defamatory words and comments made by Huynh to

third parties.


were, and are, defamatory per se because they accused Moon of

committing various state and federal crimes, of being a

criminal, of perpetrating frauds and fraudulent schemes and/or

other morally repugnant conduct (such as, but not limited to,


30/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-30-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

being a stalker), and tarnishing Moon’s good reputation in the

business and general community at large.

92. Indeed, Huynh was well aware that the false and

defamatory statement she made to third parties would harm

Moon’s reputation in the business community and the community

at-large and cause him to suffer grave reputational harm. She

made these statements with the intent and purpose to harm Moon.

93. And as a result of Huynh’s defamatory statements,

Moon’s reputation in the business community and the community

at-large was harmed and he incurred financial losses as a

result thereof. Moon also incurred emotional and mental

distress and anxiety as a result of Huynh’s defamatory

statements and the effect these had on his reputation and

goodwill.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RELIEF

Malicious Prosecution

(Against All Defendants and DOES 1 to 25)

94. Moon realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 91

fully herein.

95. Defendants initiated the Underlying Action in Orange

County Superior Court. At the time Defendants’ initiated the

Underlying Action they lacked and acted without probable cause

to bring each and every claim for relief contained therein.

96. Moreover Defendants continued to prosecute the


31/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-31-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Underlying Action without probable cause even after being

presented with exculpatory evidence and facts and/or

inconsistencies in the allegations and claims brought in the

Underlying Action.

97. Defendants acted maliciously in bringing and continuing

to prosecute the Underlying Action against Moon.

98. The Underlying Action was terminated in Moon’s favor,

and judgment entered on his behalf. Moon was declared the

prevailing party and awarded his costs from the Underlying

Action.

99. As a proximate result of Defendants bringing and

prosecuting the Underlying Action, Moon has been damaged in the

sum of $52,413.73 (excluding interest) for fees and costs

defending the Underlying Action. Moon has also incurred

damages including emotional and mental distress, loss of

business opportunities, and harm to his reputation in an amount

to be proven at trial.

100. Defendants’ acts, as alleged above, were willful,

wanton, malicious and oppressive, were undertaken with the

intent to harm and prejudice Moon and justify the awarding of

exemplary and punitive damages.

/ / /


32/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-32-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RELIEFDefamation/Slander

(Against Huynh and DOES 1 to 25)

101. Moon realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 98

fully herein.

102. As alleged above, Huynh spoke and published false and

defamatory words concerning Moon.

103. These words and publications were read and/or heard by

White and various other third parties whose names are not

currently known to Moon.


were and are defamatory per se because they accused Moon of

committing various state and federal crimes, of being a

criminal, of perpetrating frauds and fraudulent schemes and/or

other morally repugnant conduct (such as, but not limited to,

being a stalker); and tarnishing Moon’s good reputation in the


105.

The words also carried a defamatory meaning because

they falsely claimed that Moon committed frauds and fraudulent

schemes, committing various state and federal crimes, other

morally repugnant conduct (such as, but not limited to, being a

stalker); and/or tarnishing Moon’s good reputation in the



were false.



33/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-33-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

were nor privileged pursuant to the California Civil Code. Nor

could Huynh’s statements and publications be privileged because

Huynh published these words and statements with personal

animosity, actual malice, hatred and ill will toward Moon and

with either knowledge that they were false or without any

reasonable grounds for believing that they were true.

108. As a result of the above described words and

statements, Moon has suffered general damage to his reputation.

109. As a further and proximate result of the above

described words and statements, Moon has suffered the following

special damages, including but not limited to, injury to his

trade and profession, lost business opportunities and emotional

and mental distress in an amount to be proven at trial.

110. Huynh’s conduct, as alleged above, was willful,

wanton, malicious and oppressive, was undertaken with the



THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RELIEF

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress


111. Moon realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through

108 fully herein.

112. Huynh, through both her on-line activities and


34/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-34-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

statements and words published to third parties made false

statements regarding Moon, his character, his (non-existent)

criminal activities, and his conduct.

113.

Huynh acted with malice and the intent to damage Moon

and to cause him severe emotional and mental distress.

114. As a proximate result of Huynh’s acts and conduct, Moon

did in fact incur severe emotional and mental distress, in the

form of mental anguish, depression, anxiety, and humiliation.

115. As a proximate result of Huynh’s acts and conduct, Moon

suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

116. Huynh’s conduct, as alleged above, were willful,




FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RELIEF

Assault

(Against O’Young and DOES 1 to 25)


114 fully herein.

118. On or about April 15, 2013, O’Young acted, intending to

cause harm and physical damage/contact to Moon. This conduct

was demonstrated by O’Young’s verbal and physical actions

towards Moon, including but limiting to, throwing his laptop

computer at Moon. O’Young had to be restrained and in that

process - assaulted Moon’s counsel resulting in injury.


35/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-35-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

119. Moon reasonably believed that he was about to be

touched in a harmful and offensive manner by O’Young.

120. It also reasonably appeared to Moon that O’Young was

about to carry out his threats.

121. Moon did not consent to O’Young’s conduct.

122. Moon was harmed by O’Young’s conduct. And O’Young’s

conduct was a substantial factor in causing Moon’s harm.

123. O’Young’s conduct, as alleged above, was willful,

wanton, malicious and oppressive, was undertaken with the



FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RELIEF

Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage



121 fully herein.

125.

Moon and various third parties were in economic

relationship(s) that probably would have resulted in an

economic benefit to Moon.

126. Huynh knew of these relationships.

127. Huynh intended to disrupt these relationships and harm

Moon.

128.

Huynh engaged in wrongful conduct through unfounded


36/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-36-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

litigation and slander and defamation to intentionally disrupt

these economic relationships between Moon and various third

parties.

129.

Huynh is not, and was not, a competitor of Moon’s and

her conduct did not fall within the confines of fair

competition.

130. These economic relationships between Moon and various

third parties were in fact disrupted by Huynh’s improper and

illegal conduct.

131. Moon was harmed by Huynh’s improper and illegal conduct

and disruption of his economic relationships.

132. Huynh’s wrongful conduct was substantial facto in

causing Moon’s harm.

133. Huynh’s conduct, as alleged above, were willful,




/ / /

/ / /


37/40

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



CASE NO. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

-37-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WHEREFORE, Moon prays for Judgment as to all Causes of

Action for Relief as against all Defendants, as follows:

a. For actual damages according to proof and for interest

thereon at the legal rate;

b. For presumed damages according to the trier of fact;

c. For exemplary and punitive in an amount the trier of

fact deems proper;

d. For costs of suit;

e. For attorney’s fees according to proof;

f. For interest at the legal rate; and

g. For all other relief as the Court may seem just and

proper.

LAW OFFICE OF MARK T. RISNER

Dated: June 3, 2015 /s/_________________________MARK T. RISNERAttorney for Plaintiff,BRYAN CHRISTOPHER MOON

BERLINER LEGAL GROUP

Dated: June 3, 2014 /s/_________________________MATTHEW A. BERLINER

Attorney for Plaintiff,BRYAN CHRISTOPHER MOON

/ / /


38/40


Case No. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

PROOF OF SERVICE

-1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )) ss.

COUNTY OF ORANGE )

I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; mybusiness address is 1 Park Plaza, Suite 600, Irvine, CA 92614.

On this date, June 3, 2015 , I served the foregoing documentsdescribed as:

CORRECTED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Upon all interested parties in this action by placing truecopies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage fullyprepaid in the United States mail at Irvine, California addressed as follows:

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

( ) (BY MAIL) I caused such envelope with postage thereonfully prepaid, as First Class Mail, to be placed in theUnited States Mail at Irvine, California. I am "readilyfamiliar" with the firm's practice of collection andprocessing correspondence for mailing. Under thatpractice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service onthat same day with postage thereon fully prepaid atIrvine, California in the ordinary course of business. Iam aware that on motion of the party served, service is

presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postagemeter date is more than one day after the date of depositfor mailing in affidavit.

( X ) (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE, CRC Rule 2.261) My electronicservice address is [email protected] and Ielectronically served the aforementioned parties or theircounsel at their respective service address(es):[email protected] , [email protected] ,[email protected] , [email protected] on the datementioned herein at approximately ____5:00 _AM/PM .

( ) (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be

delivered by hand to the office of the addressee.

( X ) (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the lawsof the State of California that the above is true andcorrect.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


39/40


Case No. 30-2014-00713186-CU-DF-CJC

PROOF OF SERVICE

-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

( ) (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of amember of the bar of this court at whose direction theservice was made.

Executed this date, June 3, 2015, at Irvine, California.

/s/Mark T. Risner


40/40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

SERVICE LIST

Early M. Hawkins, In Pro Per

17011 Beach Blvd, Ste. 900

Huntington Beach, CA 92647

Phone: (949) 842-9394

FAX (949) 269-6377

E-Mail: [email protected]

LAW OFFICES OF EARLY M. HAWKINS

17011 Beach Blvd, Ste. 900

Huntington Beach, CA 92647

Phone: (949) 842-9394

FAX (949) 269-6377


Alan C. Brown, Esq.

DAY, DAY & BROWN

301 W. First Street,

Tustin, CA 92780

Phone: (714)832-4811

FAX: (714) 832-4815


Terrence A. Mazura, Esq. MAZURA LAW FIRM414 West 4th Street, Ste. ASanta Ana, CA 92701Phone: (714) 550-5011 Attorneys for Defendant(s): Thuy-Duyen Thi HuynhE-Mail: [email protected]

Gary E. Shoffner, Esq.414 West 4th Street, Ste. ASanta Ana, CA 92701Phone: (714) 550-5011 Attorneys for Defendant(s): Thuy-Duyen Thi HuynhE-Mail: [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Documents

The Lawsuit Filed Against Thuy Huynh, Michael O'Young, and Early Hawkins