michael gerard fletcher (state bar no. 070849)
TRANSCRIPT
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
3787946.4 | 078410-0061 1 Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLASIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
Michael Gerard Fletcher (State Bar No. 070849) [email protected] Craig A. Welin (State Bar No. 138418) [email protected] Hal Goldflam (State Bar No. 179689) [email protected]) FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C. 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Nineteenth Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2427 Telephone: (323) 852-1000 Facsimile: (323) 651-2577 Attorneys for Receiver ROBB EVANS AND ASSOCIATES LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v. JASON CARDIFF, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA RECEIVER’S SIXTH REPORT RE CARDIFF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PRIOR COURT ORDERS AND RE FAILURE TO PURGE CONTEMPT Hon. Dolly M. Gee
TO: THE HONORABLE DOLLY M. GEE, JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:
Comes now Robb Evans & Associates, LLC, the duly appointed Receiver in
this matter, and reports to the Court that the individual Cardiff Defendants, Jason
Cardiff and Eunjung Cardiff (collectively, “Cardiffs”) have failed and refused, and
continue to fail and to refuse, to pay any of the mortgage payments (and other
related preservation expenses) with respect to their Upland Residence, payment of
which this Court has previously ruled, if paid, could serve to “purge” some or all of
said Defendants’ prior contempt of this Court’s Orders, and cause the Court to
further postpone their incarceration as a sanction for such contempt.
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 45 Page ID #:17690
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
3787946.4 | 078410-0061 2 Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLASIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
FRAN
DZE
L RO
BIN
S BL
OO
M &
CSA
TO, L
.C.
1000
WIL
SHIR
E BO
ULE
VARD
, NIN
ETEE
NTH
FLO
OR
LOS
ANG
ELES
, CAL
IFO
RNIA
900
17-2
427
(323
) 852
-100
0
I. Factual and procedural background. A. FTC Action; TRO; Preliminary Injunction.
On October 10, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a
Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief (“FTC Action,”
ECF No. 1) in connection with Defendants Jason Cardiff, Eunjung Cardiff, a/k/a
Eunjung Lee, a/k/a Eunjung No, Danielle Cadiz, a/k/a Danielle Walker, Redwood
Scientific Technologies, Inc. (California), Redwood Scientific Technologies, Inc.
(Nevada), Redwood Scientific Technologies, Inc. (Delaware), Identify, LLC,
Advanced Men’s Institute Prolongz LLC, Run Away Products, LLC, and Carols
Place Limited Partnership (collectively, “Defendants”) for false and unsubstantiated
claims for dissolvable film strips advertised for smoking cessation, weight loss, and
male sexual performance; a related autoship continuity program resulting in
unauthorized shipments and charges; abusive telemarketing through robo calls; and
unsubstantiated earnings claims for a multi-level marketing scheme.
That same day, the FTC filed its Ex Parte Application for (1) Temporary
Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should
Not Issue and (2) Order Waiving Notice Requirement. (Ex Parte TRO Application,
ECF No. 3.). Also that same day, the Court entered its Ex Parte Temporary
Restraining Order with Asset Freeze, Appointment of a Temporary Receiver, and
Other Equitable Relief, and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction
Should Not Issue (“TRO,” ECF No. 29).
The TRO, along with other Court directives, restrained and enjoined
Defendants and their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and parties working in
concert or in participation with them, from “disposing of any Assets that are [...]
owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by any Defendant, including, but not
limited to, those for which a Defendant is a signatory on the account” (“Asset
Freeze”). (TRO 11-12). The TRO also enjoined each Defendant from causing the
“dissipation” of any Asset. (TRO VII A). Additionally, the Court ordered the
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 45 Page ID #:17691
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
3787946.4 | 078410-0061 3 Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLASIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
FRAN
DZE
L RO
BIN
S BL
OO
M &
CSA
TO, L
.C.
1000
WIL
SHIR
E BO
ULE
VARD
, NIN
ETEE
NTH
FLO
OR
LOS
ANG
ELES
, CAL
IFO
RNIA
900
17-2
427
(323
) 852
-100
0
appointment of Robb Evans & Associates, LLC (“Receiver”) as the temporary
receiver over the Defendants’ assets, and expressly ordered and authorized the
Receiver to, among other things, protect receivership assets, collect receivership
assets from third parties, and adjust receivership liabilities. (TRO 18-19).
The Cardiff Defendants were served with the TRO on October 12, 2018.
(Declaration of Service, ECF No’s. 38, 39). The Court first extended the TRO on
October 24, 2018, and on November 8, 2018, the Court entered a Preliminary
Injunction with Asset Freeze, Receiver, and Other Equitable Relief (“PI,” ECF No.
59),which, among other things, extended and expanded the operative terms of the
TRO, maintained the Asset Freeze and Receiver Appointment, as more fully set
forth therein and in the TRO through trial.
B. The Receiver is Authorized to Provide, and Has Provided, the Court with multiple Notices of Non-Compliance.
The TRO, the PI and other Orders of the Court issued herein order or
authorize the Receiver to perform various tasks for the Court, including an express
authorization to report to the Court any determination made by the Receiver that one
or more Defendant(s), or any third party, has failed to comply with, the TRO, the PI
or other Order of this Court. See TRO XVII, page 27, lines 9-12.
This filing constitutes the Receiver’s sixth such report of non-compliance
made to date in this case, and is supported by, among other things, the sworn
testimony/explicit admission of Defendant Jason Cardiff (attached as Exhibit 4 to
the accompanying Declaration of Brick Kane), as well as the pleadings, exhibits,
minutes, files and records of this action, expressly including those items taken from
the Court’s ECF Docket specifically referenced herein. The Receiver’s five (5)
previous reports of non-compliance were filed on (i) October 23, 2018 (ECF No.
206), (ii) July 2, 2019 (ECF No. 144), (iii) August 22, 2019 (Dots. 200; 201), (iv)
January 29, 2020 (ECF No. 273), and (v) April 30, 2020 (ECF No. 331),
respectively, which are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full.
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 45 Page ID #:17692
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
3787946.4 | 078410-0061 4 Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLASIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
FRAN
DZE
L RO
BIN
S BL
OO
M &
CSA
TO, L
.C.
1000
WIL
SHIR
E BO
ULE
VARD
, NIN
ETEE
NTH
FLO
OR
LOS
ANG
ELES
, CAL
IFO
RNIA
900
17-2
427
(323
) 852
-100
0
C. The First Contempt Order. On June 17, 2019, the FTC filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why
Defendants Eunjung and Jason Cardiff and Third Party Jacques Poujade Should Not
Be Held in Contempt of the Court’s Preliminary Orders and Sanctioned Until They
Comply Fully with Those Orders (“First Contempt Motion”). (First Contempt
Motion, ECF No. 134). In the First Contempt Motion, the FTC established that
subsequent to the issuance of the TRO and PI, the Cardiffs worked in concert with
their friend and business partner, Jacques Poujade (“Poujade”), to improperly
transfer and hide assets subject to the Asset Freeze from the Receiver and the FTC.
The Court issued an OSC re Contempt (ECF No. 140), to which the Cardiffs
responded (ECF No. 147, 166). The Court then held a three-day hearing at which,
among other things, the Cardiffs testified. ECF No.’s 181, 182, 183, & 249. At the
conclusion of testimony, the Court found the Cardiffs in contempt (see, ECF No.
238, at 2), and stated, among other things: I would say of the 16 years I’ve been on the Federal Court, I’ve never presided over a matter where the fraud committed by the defendants was so clear, the deception so extreme. I’m astounded.
ECF No. 188-1, Tr. 389: 3-6. The court continued: I’ve heard carefully from the Cardiff’s. Their stories are totally unbelievable. It’s pretty clear to the Court that they’ve lied, that they worked in concert with each other and with others to avoid, violate the conditions of the orders of the Court.
ECF No. 188-1, Tr. 390: 3-7.
On October 29, 2019, the Court issued its Order holding the Cardiffs and
Poujade in contempt, and establishing the conditions under which such contempt
might be purged (First Contempt Order, ECF No.’s 237, 238). Among other
requirements, the Cardiffs were ordered to produce a “full and detailed accounting,
under oath, of all assets held by, for the benefit of, or otherwise controlled, directly
or indirectly, by Eunjung Cardiff or Jason Cardiff (or both) for the period from July
31, 2018 to the date of [the Contempt] Order [October 29, 2019].” ECF No. 238 at
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 4 of 45 Page ID #:17693
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
3787946.4 | 078410-0061 5 Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLASIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
FRAN
DZE
L RO
BIN
S BL
OO
M &
CSA
TO, L
.C.
1000
WIL
SHIR
E BO
ULE
VARD
, NIN
ETEE
NTH
FLO
OR
LOS
ANG
ELES
, CAL
IFO
RNIA
900
17-2
427
(323
) 852
-100
0
4-5. As part of the accounting, the Cardiffs were required to, among other things,
identify “the source of each deposit/credit” to all relevant accounts. The Court
warned the Cardiffs that for each day they did not comply with the terms of the First
Contempt Order, they would/could be incarcerated. ECF No. 238 at 7.
D. Second Contempt Order. As the Court is aware, the Cardiffs did not comply with the First Contempt
Order. They: (1) failed to identify the source of the money that funded their
luxurious lifestyle; (2) dissipated assets subject to the asset freeze by spending freely
on extravagant personal and unapproved living expenses, as well as attorneys’ fees;
and (3) allowed their residence (one of the Receivership Assets) to waste by
refusing to pay the mortgage.
Accordingly, on March 2, 2020, the FTC filed another motion to show cause
why the Cardiffs should not be held in contempt of court and coercively
incarcerated until they complied. ECF No. 300. The Cardiffs filed their opposition
the next day. ECF No. 301.
On March 31, 2020, this Court again found the Cardiffs in contempt of the
TRO and PI’s provisions requiring that they disclose and account for their assets,
turn all assets over to the Receiver, and prevent the dissipation of those assets.
(“Second Contempt Order,” ECF No. 315 at 5). Rather than order coercive
incarceration at that time, the Court ruled that the Cardiffs could purge their
contempt if by April 30, 2020, they: • Identify the source of each and every cash deposit into a cash-funded credit union (FCCU) account; • To the extent Gerald Cardiff [Jason Cardiff’s father] is the source of any cash deposit into the FCCU account, identify each and every source from which he deposited funds into that account; • Turn over all Cardiff assets to the Receiver, including assets held abroad; and
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 5 of 45 Page ID #:17694
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
3787946.4 | 078410-0061 6 Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLASIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
FRAN
DZE
L RO
BIN
S BL
OO
M &
CSA
TO, L
.C.
1000
WIL
SHIR
E BO
ULE
VARD
, NIN
ETEE
NTH
FLO
OR
LOS
ANG
ELES
, CAL
IFO
RNIA
900
17-2
427
(323
) 852
-100
0
• Replenish the Receivership Estate for any and all unpaid mortgage payments on the Cardiffs’ residence, until the date of sale of that residence.
ECF No. 315 at 5 (emphasis added).
Since the issuance of the Second Contempt Order, the Cardiffs failed to
undertake to do, or do, items identified by the Court that could serve to “purge”
them of the contempt of Court set forth in the Second Contempt Order. Specifically,
the Cardiffs have failed to “replenish the Receivership Estate for any and all unpaid
mortgage payments” (or any amount) as required in the Second Contempt Order.
Instead, they filed a notice of appeal on April 7, 2020, (ECF No. 317), followed by a
motion in this Court for a stay pending appeal, which was denied (ECF No. 343).
Further, the Cardiffs have not complied with the orders of the Ninth Circuit about
their defective appeal of the Second Contempt Order. (See Kane Declaration, 9th
Circuit Appeal Docket, and no compliance with the clerk’s orders at Docket nos. 10
and 3).
The appeal has now been dismissed (ECF No. 362). II. Sixth Report of Non-Compliance: The Cardiffs’ Failure to Replenish the
Receivership Estate for required Mortgage Payments on Upland Residence.
As noted above, the Second Contempt Order held the individual Cardiff
Defendants in contempt of court for their willful dissipation of assets subject to the
Asset Freeze and for the other items set forth therein. The Court provided the
Cardiffs with an “out” for such contempt and indicated that the Cardiffs’ contempt
could be purged if, among other things, within 30 days thereof (i.e. by April 30,
2020), the Cardiffs: [R]replenish[ed] the Receivership Estate for any and all unpaid mortgage payments on the Upland Residence, until the date of the sale of the Upland Residence (as authorized by ECF No’s 306, 309).
Second Contempt Order, ECF No. 310, p. 5.
This Court has authorized the Receiver to list and sell, subject to further Court
order, the Cardiffs’ Upland Residence. (ECF No. 309). That process is underway.
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 6 of 45 Page ID #:17695
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
3787946.4 | 078410-0061 7 Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLASIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
FRAN
DZE
L RO
BIN
S BL
OO
M &
CSA
TO, L
.C.
1000
WIL
SHIR
E BO
ULE
VARD
, NIN
ETEE
NTH
FLO
OR
LOS
ANG
ELES
, CAL
IFO
RNIA
900
17-2
427
(323
) 852
-100
0
The Receivership Estate is depleted with every day that goes by without the
mortgage payments and related property expenses being paid by the Cardiffs.
Notwithstanding the opportunity given by the Court to the Cardiffs to purge their
contempt of court and avoid incarceration by replenishing the Receivership Estate
for mortgage payments on the Upland Residence while the Receiver markets and
sells it, Mr. Cardiff has flatly refused to take advantage of the Court’s generous
opportunity to avoid incarceration arguing that the PI “doesn’t require him” to make
any such payment to, or replenishment of, the Receivership Estate with respect the
Upland Residence. See Declaration of Jason Cardiff dated June 1, 2020, Kane
Declaration, Exhibit 4, at ¶ 5: As to the order that I ‘[r]eplenish the Receivership Estate for any and all unpaid mortgage payments on the Upland Residence, until the date of sale of the Upland Residence (as authorized by ECF Nos. 306, 309).’ I respectfully submit that the Preliminary Injunction does not require that I pay the receivership estate for the unpaid mortgage.”). [Emphasis Added].
While Cardiff refuses to address any obligation to replenish the Receivership
estate for the mortgage and other payments in arrears, and keep the mortgage
current, they nonetheless continue to “live high on the hog.” Attached to the Kane
Declaration as Exhibit 5 is a recent credit application for the lease of new Land
Rover Range Rover Sport, valued at about $84,000.
III. Conclusion. The Cardiffs have failed and refuse to comply with this Court’s order to
replenish the receivership estate for the accrued and accruing fees, costs, and
expenses regarding the mortgage on the Upland Residence. This, despite being
given extra time by this Court to do so, and having been provided with the exact
amount to pay prior to expiration of the deadline to do so. At the same time, they
continue to spend lavishly on their life style.
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 7 of 45 Page ID #:17696
u ....:I 1¥
0 ~o
0-<['. E-<~N <(:X:'<!' tl) f-< N u~~
t<l .... ~ ... 0
t<l 0 ::;s2:mg oZ:So 0 ~- ~ ';' ~<0~ !:Q~~CX) tl)-'<c;) Z g u_ N -r:l:)ooM I=Q t<l '-'
0 ~ t;l ~ :X: " "' z ~ ::l < J:il~~ N 0 ....l Q 0 z 0 ~ .... ~
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
DATED: July(b,2020
3787946.4 1 078410-0061
ROBB EVANS & ASSOCIATES LLC Acting in its capacity as the duly appointed receiver
By: ~-)'~ BRICK KANE President
8 Case No.5: 18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA SIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 8 of 45 Page ID #:17697
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
3787946.4 | 078410-0061 9 Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLASIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
FRAN
DZE
L RO
BIN
S BL
OO
M &
CSA
TO, L
.C.
1000
WIL
SHIR
E BO
ULE
VARD
, NIN
ETEE
NTH
FLO
OR
LOS
ANG
ELES
, CAL
IFO
RNIA
900
17-2
427
(323
) 852
-100
0
DECLARATION OF BRICK KANE I, Brick Kane, declare as follows:
1. I am the President & Chief Operating Officer of Robb Evans &
Associates LLC (“REA”), initially the Temporary Receiver and subsequently the
Receiver in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this
declaration and, if I were called upon to testify as to those matters, I could and
would competently testify thereto based upon my personal knowledge.
2. I am one of the individuals with REA that has primary responsibility
for the day-to-day supervision and management of the receivership estate in this
case since REA first began to act as the Temporary Receiver on October 10, 2018,
pursuant the its Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order with Asset Freeze,
Appointment of a Temporary Receiver, and Other Equitable Relief, and Order to
Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (“TRO”). The TRO
covered numerous entities and individuals, including without limitation Jason
Cardiff and Eunjung Cardiff (collectively, “Cardiffs”), both personally and as
trustees of the Carol’s Place Trust (“Trust”).
3. On October 24, 2018, the Court entered its Preliminary Injunction with
Asset Freeze, Receiver, and Other Equitable Relief Against Redwood Scientific
Technologies, Inc. (CA), etc. Appointment of a Receiver, and Other Equitable
Relief, whereby the Court ordered that Robb Evans & Associates LLC shall
continue to serve as the Receiver of the Receivership Entities with full powers of an
equity receiver. (ECF No. No. 46).
4. On October 24, 2018, the Court entered its Order Extending Temporary
Restraining Order and Granting Continuance of Preliminary Injunction Hearing for
Defendants Jason Cardiff and Eunjung Cardiff and Ordering them to Return Assets.
(ECF No. 48).
5. On November 8, 2018, the Court entered its Preliminary Injunction
with Asset Freeze, Receiver, and Other Equitable Relief Against Jason Cardiff and
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 9 of 45 Page ID #:17698
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
3787946.4 | 078410-0061 10 Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLASIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
FRAN
DZE
L RO
BIN
S BL
OO
M &
CSA
TO, L
.C.
1000
WIL
SHIR
E BO
ULE
VARD
, NIN
ETEE
NTH
FLO
OR
LOS
ANG
ELES
, CAL
IFO
RNIA
900
17-2
427
(323
) 852
-100
0
Eunjung Cardiff (“Preliminary Injunction”), whereby the Court ordered that Robb
Evans & Associates LLC shall continue to serve as the Receiver of the Receivership
Entities and of the Assets of the Cardiffs, as more particularized therein, with full
powers of an equity receiver. (ECF. No. 59).
6. On March 16, 2020, this Court entered its Order authorizing the
Receiver to list and sell, subject to further Court order, the Cardiffs’ Upland
Residence. (ECF No. 309). That process is underway. The Receiver has listed the
Cardiffs’ Upland Residence for sale with a reputable real estate broker, who is
marketing the property and fielding offers.
7. Unfortunately, since the establishment of the Receivership, no
mortgage payments, and certain other essential payments, have been made with
regard to the Cardiffs’ Upland Residence, and the Receivership Estate is depleted
with every day that goes by without such mortgage payments and related property
expenses being paid by the Cardiffs.
8. During the pendency of this Case, this Court has twice found the
Cardiffs to have intentionally violated the TRO and Preliminary Injunction, and has
held them in Contempt of Court. [See, (i) First Contempt Order, ECF No.’s 237,
238; and Second Contempt Order, ECF No.315].
9. Rather than order the Cardiffs into immediate coercive incarceration in
connection with the Second Contempt Order, this Court instead graciously provided
the Cardiffs with the opportunity to avoid such incarceration, and to purge their
contempt, if by April 30, 2020, they: • Identify the source of each and every cash deposit into a cash-funded credit union (FCCU) account;
• To the extent Gerald Cardiff [Jason Cardiff’s father] is the source of any cash deposit into the FCCU account, identify each and every source from which he deposited funds into that account;
• Turn over all Cardiff assets to the Receiver, including assets held abroad; and
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 10 of 45 Page ID #:17699
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
3787946.4 | 078410-0061 11 Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLASIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
FRAN
DZE
L RO
BIN
S BL
OO
M &
CSA
TO, L
.C.
1000
WIL
SHIR
E BO
ULE
VARD
, NIN
ETEE
NTH
FLO
OR
LOS
ANG
ELES
, CAL
IFO
RNIA
900
17-2
427
(323
) 852
-100
0
• Replenish the Receivership Estate for any and all unpaid mortgage payments on the Cardiffs’ residence, until the date of sale of that residence.
ECF No. 315 at 5.
10. Since the issuance of the Second Contempt Order, the Cardiffs have
failed to undertake to do, or do, any of the items concerning the residence identified
by the Court that could serve to “purge” them of the contempt of Court as permitted
by the Court in the Second Contempt Order. First, they filed a notice of appeal on
April 7, 2020, (ECF No. 317), followed by a request to this Court for a stay pending
appeal (ECF No. 324), which was denied (ECF No. 343). Second, the Cardiffs’
defective appeal of the Second Contempt Order has been dismissed (ECF No. 362).
11. Third, the Cardiffs have wholly failed (and indeed flat out refuse) to
even attempt to purge their contempt by “replenish[ing] the Receivership Estate for
any and all unpaid mortgage payments” (or any amount) as provided in the Second
Contempt Order.
12. It is my understanding and belief that the Cardiffs refuse to pay any
amounts to replenish the Receivership Estate regarding obligations accruing with
respect to the Receivership Estate while the Receiver attempts to market it for sale.
Attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2, and incorporated herein, are (i) a recent
statement from Mr. Cooper, the holder of the mortgage on the Cardiffs’ Upland
Residence, indicating that no payments have been made on that obligation since the
time the Receivership was implemented and (ii) a statement from a collection
agency retained by the unpaid provider of certain solar equipment installed on the
Upland Residence by the Cardiffs indicating that it remains unpaid.
13. Additionally, on or about June 1, 2020, the Receiver’s counsel, Michael
Gerard Fletcher, Esq., of Frandzel Robins Bloom and Csato LC (“Receiver’s
Counsel”) received an email transmitted by the Cardiffs’ counsel, Stephen Cochell
([email protected]), with a Declaration of Jason Cardiff attached, which was
apparently intended by the Cardiffs to detail their efforts to meet the Court’s
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 11 of 45 Page ID #:17700
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
3787946.4 | 078410-0061 12 Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLASIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
FRAN
DZE
L RO
BIN
S BL
OO
M &
CSA
TO, L
.C.
1000
WIL
SHIR
E BO
ULE
VARD
, NIN
ETEE
NTH
FLO
OR
LOS
ANG
ELES
, CAL
IFO
RNIA
900
17-2
427
(323
) 852
-100
0
“purge” requirements with respect to the Second Contempt Order. Attached hereto
as Exhibit 3, and incorporated herein is a copy of Mr. Cochell’s email sent to the
Receiver’s Counsel on June 1, 2020; attached hereto as Exhibit 4, and incorporated
therein is a copy of the “Declaration of Jason Cardiff” (bearing Mr. Cardiff’s
signature), that was attached to Mr. Cochell’s email.
14. As is abundantly clear from Mr. Cardiff’s Declaration, that
notwithstanding being given an opportunity to purge themselves of their contempt
of court and avoid incarceration by replenishing the Receivership Estate for
mortgage payments and related expenses with respect to the Upland Residence
while the Receiver markets and sells it, the Cardiffs have flatly refused to take
advantage of the Court’s generous opportunity to avoid incarceration. Mr. Cardiff’s
declaration simply ignores the “opportunity to purge” aspects of the Second
Contempt Order, and confirms that he has no intention of ever replenishing anything
to the Receivership: As to the order that I ‘[r]eplenish the Receivership Estate for any and all unpaid mortgage payments on the Upland Residence, until the date of sale of the Upland Residence (as authorized by ECF Nos. 306, 309).’ I respectfully submit that the Preliminary Injunction does not require that I pay the receivership estate for the unpaid mortgage.” [Emphasis Added].
Declaration of Jason Cardiff, Exhibit 4 hereto at ¶ 5.
15. All of the above comes in the context of the Cardiffs appearing to
continuing to live a lavish life style, at the expense of the receivership estate.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of a June 22, 2020,
communication to the Receiver from JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., authenticating a
credit application dated as of February 1, 2020, from Jaguar Land Rover of Newport
Beach, California. Eunjung Cardiff completed the credit application for the
purposes of leasing a new 2020 Land Rover Range Rover Sport, for a net capital
cost of $84,291.00. Ms. Cardiff claims to have been employed for the last 2 years
and 1 month, as a Director of Executive Management, and lists her income as
$35,000.00 per month, none of which has previously been disclosed to the Receiver.
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 12 of 45 Page ID #:17701
u ..j ..:
0 ~o
O....lr--E-<I'..N <( :z: '<t' Cl) E-< ("ii
u~" "' .... ~ E-< 0 "'0
~2:a.g oZ:So 0 ~- ~ ';' ...:I < 0 ("ii j:Q>!::lll ..,,_,oo (/)~<-
Z 5 u_ R ...... ~:QcnM ~ "' '-' 0 ~ t;l ~ :z: " "' z ...:I ::l <(
l'<l3~ No....:! ~ 0 z 0 ~ .... ~
1 She also states erroneously that her home at 700 W. 25th Street, Upland, California,
2 which is the residential property as to which this Court has ordered the Cardiffs to
3 bring the mortgage current and keep it current, is owned "free and clear." She
4 further misstates that she is not involved in any lawsuits and has had no property
5 repossessed.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed
on July I .62020, at Alhambra, California.
BRICK KANE
3787946.4 1 078410-0061 13 Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA SIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 13 of 45 Page ID #:17702
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
3787946.4 | 078410-0061 14 Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLASIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE
FRAN
DZE
L RO
BIN
S BL
OO
M &
CSA
TO, L
.C.
1000
WIL
SHIR
E BO
ULE
VARD
, NIN
ETEE
NTH
FLO
OR
LOS
ANG
ELES
, CAL
IFO
RNIA
900
17-2
427
(323
) 852
-100
0
EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF BRICK KANE
Exhibit 1 Mr. Cooper Statement re Mortgage Reinstatement for Upland Residence dated March 18, 2020.
Exhibit 2 Collection Agency Statement re unpaid Solar Upgrade Obligations on Upland Residence.
Exhibit 3 Email from S. Cochell to M. Fletcher dated June 2, 2020 transmitting Declaration of Jason Cardiff as an attachment
Exhibit 4 Declaration of J. Cardiff attached to S. Cochell / M. Fletcher Email dated June 1, 2020.
Exhibit 5 June 22, 2020, communication to the Receiver from JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., authenticating a credit application dated as of February 1, 2020, from Jaguar Land Rover of Newport Beach, California
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 14 of 45 Page ID #:17703
1
From: Stephen Cochell <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 12:10 PMTo: Michael Fletcher; Sanger, Elizabeth; Prunty, James A.; Modell, Shira D.Cc: Jim White; Jonathan L. SlotterSubject: Declaration of Jason Cardiff re ContemptAttachments: Declaration of Jason CardiffF.pdf
This is to provide you with a declaration that substantially duplicates what we have discussed on a number of occasions. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. -- Stephen R. Cochell The Cochell Law Firm, P.C. 5850 San Felipe, Ste. 500 Houston, Texas 77057 (346)800-3500 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, printing, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail including any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please destroy this email and notify the sender by e-mail of the same.
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 26 of 45 Page ID #:17715
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
James D. White, Esq. Law Offices of James D. White CA Bar # 064721 PO Box 367 113 Quarter Horse Dr. Bellevue, ID 83313 949 697 9236 [email protected] Stephen R. Cochell Cochell Law Firm P.C. 5850 San Felipe Ste 500 Houston Texas 77057 (346)800-3500 [email protected] Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Defendants Jason Cardiff and Eunjung Cardiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, vs. JASON CARDIFF, et al. Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No.: 5:18-cv-02104-SJO (PLAx)
DECLARATION OF JASON CARDIFF
I, Jason Cardiff, do hereby declare the following:
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 28 of 45 Page ID #:17717
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
I make this declaration pursuant to federal law, 28 U.S.C. Section 1746 under
penalty of perjury.
1. As to the four “bullet points” on page 5 of Judge Otero’s Order (Dkt. # 315),
without waiving any rights, including rights arising from the appeal of said
order, I submit the following information to the best of my present
recollection and belief respecting each such “bullet point.”
2. As to the “source of each and every cash deposit into the FCCU Account”
in my father’s name, I talked directly with my father who told me that all
such cash deposits were made with cash funds that he had saved up over
many years.
3. As to the “source from which he (referring to my father, Gerald Cardiff)
deposited funds into the FCCU Account” my father has told me he had
saved cash over many years, primarily accumulated years ago when he
was active as a dentist and that the cash funds deposited into that FCCU
Account was from cash reserves he had in his possession and accumulated
over the years.
4. As to the order that I “[t]urn over all Cardiff assets to the Receiver,
including assets that have to be repatriated from abroad”, I have already
done so. It should be noted that the Receiver has not, to date, been able
to identify any Foreign assets that have not been turned over per the
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 29 of 45 Page ID #:17718
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
Order. It is unclear why the FTC raised this issue as part of their
contempt.
5. As to the order that I “[r]eplenish the Receivership Estate for any and all
unpaid mortgage payments on the Upland Residence, until the date of sale
of the Upland Residence (as authorized by ECF Nos. 306, 309).” I
respectfully submit that the Preliminary Injunction does not require that I
pay the receivership estate for unpaid mortgage. I had high expenses at
the time of the TRO. The home was bought and paid for with untainted
funds. It should also be noted that we requested living expenses to pay for
the mortgage, which was denied.
6. I was paying for my father’s retirement home expenses because my father
told me he needed my help. When I started to pay for father’s retirement
home, I did not question whether he had other resources and have no right
to require him to tell me the extent of his financial resources. One of my
other four brothers is now helping my dad by paying for the retirement
home.
7. My father was born in 1929 and has different views about what kind of
information he wants to share with his children. It did not surprise me that
he had cash that he kept for either an emergency or to leave his children
when he passes away.
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 30 of 45 Page ID #:17719
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
8. This is a summary of events. I have personal knowledge of the facts thereof
and if called as a witness at hearing or trial, I reserve the right to
supplement and/or clarify my declaration.
Executed on June 1, 2020 at Upland, California.
_________________ Jason Cardiff
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 31 of 45 Page ID #:17720
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 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 32 of 45 Page ID #:17721
National Subpoena ProcessingMail Code IN1-40547610 West Washington StreetIndianapolis, Indiana 46231
6/22/2020
COLEEN CALLAHANROBB EVANS & ASSOCIATES LLCRECEIVER OF REDWOOD SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC ET AL11450 SHELDON STREETSUN VALLEY, CA 91352-1121
Case Name: Federal Trade Commission v Jason Cardiff, et alCase No.: ED 5:18-cv-02104-SJO-PLAxJPMorgan Chase File No.: 1163-F1
Dear Sir/Madam:
Here is the information that fulfills your request on the matter referenced above.
If you have questions, please call us at 1-844-751-7728. We're here to help Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. EasternTime. Please know that we are only able to provide a status of this request. We can't verbally disclose further information related to therecords and/or information provided.
Please notify our office immediately of any email address changes to avoid electronic delivery delays for future productions.
Sincerely,
Leah LucasOperations Manager, VPChase Customer Service
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Member FDICSUBP17
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 34 of 45 Page ID #:17723
DECLARATION
Case No.: ED 5:18-cv-02104-SJO-PLAx, ED 5:18-cv-02104-SJO-PLA, 1163-F1
Kristen Wilson, certifies and declares as follows:
1. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action.
2. My business address is 7610 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46231.
3. I am a Doc Review Sr Specialist II and Custodian of Records for JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A, (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”) in the National Subpoena Processing
Department located in Indianapolis, IN.
4. Based on my knowledge of the Bank’s business records practices and procedures, the
enclosed records are a true and correct copy of the original documents kept by the Bank
in the ordinary course of business.
5. Based on my knowledge of the Bank’s business records practices and procedures, the
records were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth in the
records by, or from, information transmitted by a person with knowledge of those
matters.
6. It is the regular practice of the Bank to make such a record of transactions in the
ordinary course of business.
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: ______________________________
By:__________________________ Kristen Wilson Doc Review Sr Specialist II JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.
6/22/2020
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 35 of 45 Page ID #:17724
Table Of Contents :1163-F1
Account Number : 7783Auto Loan -Documents 1Auto Loan -Documents 2Auto Loan -Documents 8
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 36 of 45 Page ID #:17725
Ending in 77832020 LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER SPO 02/02/2020
Dear EUNJUNG CARDIFF:
We realize you may be facing significant hardship right now, so we're deferring 3 lease payment(s) on your 2020 LAND ROVER. We do not charge a fee for deferrals.
Your payment(s) of $3,510.18, originally due on 04/02/2020 05/02/2020 06/02/2020, will now be due at the end of your lease on 11/02/2022. Your final lease payment and any other charges due under your lease agreement will also be due then.
This means that your next regular lease payment of $1,170.06 is due on 07/02/2020.
If you have been making payments by automatic debit through chase.com or another bill payment service, you must manually stop them for the deferral period. If you don't, we will continue to receive your automatic payment on your previous due date.
We suggest you keep a copy of this letter. If you'd like to reverse this deferral or have questions, please call us at 1-800-227-5151.
Sincerely,
Chase Auto Finance
Esta carta contiene información importante de la cuenta.Si tiene alguna pregunta, por favor llame al 1-800-227-5151.
April 17, 2020
1-800-227-5151
We accept operator relay calls
!!"#$%&'#()*+,-*./!0*,1*23*&4%2+%&52%*,
6*7+*&8*9*++/$:&;"#+&0*23*&<2;(*$%
=#*3%/"$3>
EUNJUNG CARDIFF
UPLAND CA
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.PO Box 182055Columbus, OH 43218-2055
Important Notice:
1 8
Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 Page 44 of 45 Page ID #:17733