Nu

Nu v. Nguyen CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 5, 2013G046839California2,904 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

On July 20, 2011, Phuong Ton Nu filed a complaint against dentist Mark Nguyen, alleging she had given Nguyen $70,000 to invest in real estate, and Nguyen just took the money and never got back to her. The complaint did not specify any particular real estate to be purchased. As worded, the real estate might have been purchased anywhere in the world.2 Attached to the complaint were two exhibits. Exhibit A was a copy of two notes. The first note was dated November 4, 2008, and appears to have been addressed to Khanh from Nguyen: “I, Mark Nguyen, have received 45,000.00 in cash for Decima Realty Assoc. and have deposited into the checking account at Washington Mutual. I am expecting a 25,000.00 wire transfer.” The second note said “I received this $70,000.00 in full from Phong Ton Nu to give to Chanh Vinh Khanh.” Exhibit B was a letter from Nu’s attorney Truong dated June 14, 2011 demanding immediate return of the $70,000, with the threat: “If my client prevails, which the facts of this case clearly indicate so, interest rate and related costs will be demanded.” Nu’s deposition was taken November 4, 2011. Two preliminary matters must be noted. First of all, Nu needed an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.