Complaint Unlimited Fee AppliesCal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 26, 2021E-FILED 3/26/2021 10:14 PM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 21CV381409 Reviewed By: M Vu 21CV381409 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ’V . ’ LAW OFFICES VU.S.A. LAW OFFICES, APC MICHAEL CHINH VU, SBN 178148 142 EAST MISSION STREET SAN JOSE. CA 951 12 TELEPHONE: (408) 288-7400 FACSIMILE: (408) 288-7798 EMAIL: M:CHAELVU@VU5ALAW.COM Attorney for Plaintiff ALEXUZ LINH PHAM IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ALEXUZ LINH PHAM, CASE NO. Plaintiff COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: 1. Breach 0f Contract Versus 2. Breach 0f Implied Good Faith and Fair Dealing 3. Quantum Meruit 4. Accounting HAI BANG THAI AND DOES 1 TO 10, Defendants vvvvvvvvvvvvv Plaintiff ALEXUZ LINH PHAM, hereinafter referred t0 as "Plaintiff', for her Complaint for damages against Defendants HA1 BANG THAI and DOES 1 TO 10, hereinafter referred to as ”Defendants", alleges as follows: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Complaint For Damages Page 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Plaintiff is an individual and resident 0f the County 0f Santa Clara, State 0f California. Defendants HA1 BANG THAI, hereinafter individually referred t0 as ”Defendant Thai", is an individual and resident 0f the County of Santa Clara, State 0f California. Plaintiff does not yet know the true names 0f other Defendants and therefore sues them under the fictitious names 0f DOES 1 through 10. Plaintiff will amend her Complaint t0 include the true names 0f these Defendants when ascertained. When the term “Defendants” is used, it shall refer t0 all persons and/or entities named as Defendants in this action. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants were the partners, agents and employees of their co- Defendants, and in doing the things alleged in this complaint were acting with the course and scope of that agency and employment. Plaintiff is further informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants conspired with each other t0 commit the acts alleged herein that resulted in Plaintiff s damages. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of these Defendants was in some manner negligently and proximately responsible for the events and happenings alleged in this Complaint and for Plaintiff s damages. Plaintiff and Defandant Thai had a wedding ceremony 0n November 29, 2008, but they never applied for 0r obtain a marriage certificate. They have two children together: Adrian Thai, born 7/5/09; and Nathan Thai, born 1/1 1/12. Complaint For Damages Page 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 10. 11. 12. 13. Even though the parties knew that they were not legally married, they agreed t0 hold each other t0 their relatives, friends and the public that they were a married couple. At their wedding ceremony, the parties exchanged marital vows and promised t0 be husband and Wife t0 each other. Soon after the wedding ceremony in November 2008, the parties made oral promises t0 each other that they would treat each other as a married couple, would raise a family together, and all 0f the assets that they had 0r would later acquire would belong t0 them as a married couple. The parties' conduct from the date 0f their wedding ceremony showed that they were a married couple living together and raising a family. In or about 201 1, the partias bought a house located at 542 Hobbie Lane, San Jose, CA 95127 "Family Home” for $370,000. The parties pooled money together t0 put a down payment 0f approximately $100,000. Title to the Family Home was held in Defendant Thai's name because Plaintiff did not have adequate income, and she also trusted Defendant Thai as they were a happy couple together with one child and were expecting a second child. Plaintiff believes that the current fair market value 0f the Family Home is about $1,000,000. The parties also agreed to build, renovate, and turn the basement into a living unit. This unit has been rented out for about $1 ,700 per month. At the time when they had their wedding ceremony and reception, she had about $100,000 of her separate funds. During the course 0f their life together, Plaintiff had used all 0f her separate funds for their joint living expenses and maintenance. Complaint For Damages Page 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Plaintiff owned a mobile home located at 364 Pinefield Road, San Jose, CA prior t0 the parties' wedding ceremony. Plaintiff transferred the ownership interest in the mobile home t0 Defendant Thai, who subsequently sold said mobile home sold to Plaintiffs brother Duy Linh Pham for $50,000 in 0r about 2010. This $50,000 was part 0f the $100,000 down payment to purchase the Family Home. Plaintiff worked as a manicurist for many years. Defendant Thai has been employed as an engineer. He also has a 401(k) plan and stock investment account. He has assured Plaintiff that whatever property they had, they all shared them together like a married couple. About three years ago, Plaintiff decided t0 rent a place to be away from Defendant Thai at night t0 avoid the ongoing conflict between them. However, she came home very day t0 spend time and t0 take care 0f the children. During the course 0f their relationship, Plaintiff spent all of her time to perform domestic duties to take care of Defendant Thai and treated him as her spouse and gave him money and assets based 0n the confidence and trust 0f a lifelong partner. About 6 months ago, Plaintiff realized that after having tried to find ways t0 work out that their relationship could not be resumed or reconciled. Plaintiff tried t0 discuss With Defendants about dividing their assets. Defendant Thai reneged 0n his promises and told Plaintiff that they were never legally married and that he did not own her any obligations and refused t0 divide the property and assets and he had promised Plaintiff. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach 0f Contract) [As against All Defendants] Complaint For Damages Page 4 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19. 20. 21. 22. Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every foregoing and incorporates by reference the allegations stated in Paragraphs 1 through 18, as if fully alleged herein. In 0r about November 2008 and subsequent times during their relationship, Plaintiff and Defendants entered into and reaffirmed their oral contract. The terms 0f the contract relied on Plaintiff included, but not limited to: a. Plaintiff and Defendant would cohabit with each other in the same house and would share with each other all living expenses and house chores; b. Plaintiff and Defendants agreed that they would consider, treat, and respect each other as husband and wife, and would care for each other in times 0f special needs; c. Plaintiff and Defendants further agreed that Plaintiff would have an equal share 0f ownership interest in all of the assets and properties they acquired during the course 0f their cohabitation lived, and in all other property in which Defendants had 0r would have an interest in, including properties in Defendants' name, ownership, possession, custody 0r control. Plaintiff and Defendants had several oral agreements in which Defendant Thai agreed, promised and assured Plaintiff that they were living together as a family and therefore the Family Home belonged t0 them jointly and equally, and that Plaintiff had an undivided 1/2 ownership interest therein. At the request 0f Defendant Thai, Plaintiff worked only part-time and devoted her time to domestic duties and took care 0f the two minor children to enable Defendant Thai t0 focus 0n his career and employment to provide for the family. Complaint For Damages Page 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Plaintiff had satisfactorily performed all the terms 0f the bargain by providing more than her fair share 0f the joint living expenses and house chores. She performed all domestic duties required 0f a spouse during the course of their cohabitation. During the course 0f their cohabitation, Plaintiff had to forgo many opportunities in education, employment, career advancement, and other social benefits to commit to the agreement that she entered into with Defendants, and t0 care for Defendants in times 0f special needs. Defendants had breached their promises with Plaintiff, and have refused to allow Plaintiff the benefits 0f her contract and to perform under this contract in the agreed manner. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result 0f Defendants’ breach, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial loss 0f her contractual rights and benefits, all 0f which are not less than the jurisdiction of th;s Court, the precise amount 0f which will be proven at trial. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach 0f Implied Good Faith and Fair Dealing) [As Against all Defendants] Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations stated in Paragraphs 1 through 26, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein. As a result 0f the contractual relationship existed between Plaintiff and Defendants, the express and implied promises made in connection with that relationship, and the acts, conduct, and communications resulting in these implied Complaint For Damages Page 6 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29. promises, Defendants promised t0 act in good faith toward and deal fairly with Plaintiff, which requires, among other things, that: Each party in the relationship must act with good faith toward the other concerning all matters related t0 their cohabitation; Each party in the relationship must act with fairness toward the other concerning all matters related t0 their cohabitation; Neither party would take any action t0 unfairly prevent the other from obtaining the benefits 0f the contractual relationship; Defendants would not misrepresent the facts With intent t0 defraud Plaintiff; Defendants would give Plaintiff’s interests as much consideration as they gave their own interests. Defendants’ refusal to honor the terms of the agreement entered into between them is wrongful, in bad faith, and unfair, and therefore is in a Violation of Defendants’ legal duties. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants breached the covenant 0f good faith and fair dealing when: Defendants acted in bad faith and in direct adversary t0 Plaintiff‘s interest as related t0 their cohabitation; Defendants failed to act with fairness toward Plaintiff concerning all matters related t0 their cohabitation; Defendants took malicious and calculated action t0 unfairly prevent Plaintiff from obtaining the benefits 0f the contractual relationship; Defendants failed t0 give Plaintiff’s interests as much consideration as they gave their own interests. Complaint For Damages Page 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30. 31. 32. 34. Defendants used force t0 hurt and harm Plaintiff’s body, and t0 prevent Plaintiff from enjoying the property in which she contractually has an interest. Defendants’ breach 0f the covenant of good faith and fair dealing was a substantial factor in causing damage and injury to Plaintiff. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct alleged in this complaint, Plaintiff has suffered and continue to suffer substantial contractual rights and benefits, the total of which is in excess 0f the jurisdictional amount 0f this Court, and the precise amount 0f which will be proven at trial. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Quantum Meruit) [As Against All Defendants] Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations stated in Paragraphs 1 through 30, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein. During the course 0f Plaintiff’s cohabitation with Defendant Thai, she had provided substantial time, service, effort, and money, among other things, t0 provide Defendants with a comfortable living environment that Defendants would otherwise not have had it not been for their agreement to cohabit and treat each other like a married couple. Plaintiff performed all of domestic duties and contributed time, service, effort, and money toward the cohabitation partly due t0 her reliance 0n the contractual agreement that the parties had entered into when they began their cohabitation. Defendants had substantially benefited from the contribution 0f time, service, effort, and money 0f Plaintiff, and had obtained the full benefits 0f their contractual cohabitation. Complaint For Damages Page 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 35. 36. 37. 39. 40. Plaintiff would not have provided the time, service, effort and money t0 benefit Defendants had they not entered into a cohabitation, whose terms and conditions were previously stated herein. As the direct and proximate result 0f Defendants” breach, Plaintiff was prevented from the benefit of her bargain promised her in the cohabitation agreement. Plaintiff’s time, service, effort, and money would be wasted and uncompensated for. Therefore, Plaintiff requests that her time, service, and effort be reasonably compensated under the doctrine of quantum meruit, the total amount of which Plaintiff believes is in excess of the jurisdictional amount 0f this Court, and the precise amount 0f which will be proven at trial. As to the money Plaintiff had contributed toward the cohabitation, Plaintiff demands that any and all monetary contribution be reimbursed t0 her. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Accounting) [As Against All Defendants] Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges each and every foregoing paragraph and incorporates by reference the allegations stated therein as if fully alleged herein. During the course 0f the parties’ cohabitation, Plaintiff also financially contributed toward their joint living expenses for them and two minor children. With respect t0 the Family Home, Plaintiff substantially contributed toward the down payment t0 purchase said property. She also financially contributed toward the monthly mortgage payment, property taxes, homeowner's insurance maintenance and renovation 0f the Family Home. Plaintiff demands full accounting 0f monies contributed toward the expenses for the Family Home, together with prejudgment interest pursuant t0 Civil Code Complaint For Damages Page 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 section 3287 and pursuant t0 any other provision 0f law providing for prejudgment interest. FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION: WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants and DOES 1 through 10, and each 0f them, for the following: 1. General damages in an amount t0 be proven at trial; 2. Interest according to law; 3. A11 costs associated with this lawsuit; 4. Any other and further relief that the Court considers proper; 5. Plaintiff spacifically requests a jury trial. Respectfully submitted, VU.S.A. LAW OFFICES, APC / DATED: March 24, 2021 W MICHAEL CHINH VU Attorney for Plaintiff ALEXUZ LINH PHAM Complaint For Damages Page 10
