Steven P. Kartzman ("Trustee") as Chapter 7 Trustee for Mac Truong and Maryse Mac Truong ("Debtors") has moved for an injunction to limit the Debtors' effort to repeatedly litigate matters decided adversely to them. As set forth below, with some modifications, the relief requested is granted.

This court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and § 157(a) and the Standing Order of Reference issued by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 23, 1984. This motion is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). The following constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Fed.R. Bankruptcy P. 7052.

Typically, a request for injunctive relief requires commencement of an adversary proceeding under Bankruptcy Rule 7001(7). However, under Bankruptcy Rule 1001 the court may construe the Bankruptcy Rules so as "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every case or proceeding." Because of the excessive litigation history of this case, the concomitant expense to all parties from the protracted litigation that has marked this case, and the fact that the Debtors have had the opportunity to fully respond to this motion, the Court will not require the Trustee to file an adversary proceeding.

I.

The instant motion is not the Trustee's first request for a filing injunction. At the Trustee's request, on March 20, 2006 this court entered an order that enjoined the Debtors from filing "any pleadings, motions or cross motions" in bankruptcy case 03-40283 or adversary proceeding 03-2681 without first obtaining leave of the court. This filing injunction was necessitated by the unnecessarily litigious manner in which the Debtors defended the adversary proceeding and attempted to thwart the Trustee's ability to administer the bankruptcy estate.

The adversary proceeding litigation actually began in April 2004 in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Bergen County, Chancery Division ("State Court Action") on a complaint filed by Broadwhite Associates ("Broadwhite") to set aside the Debtors' transfer of their property at 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey (the "Property"). The complaint was premised on the New Jersey fraudulent transfer statute. The complaint alleged that in 1999 the Debtors transferred the Property to Sylvaine Decrouy ("Decrouy"), the sister of Maryse Mac Truong, and that the deed was recorded on January 10, 2000. The complaint further alleged that in June 2001, Decrouy transferred the Property to the Debtors' son, Hugh MacTruong. The Debtors, Decrouy and Hugh MacTruong were named as defendants in Broadwhite's complaint.

Several months after the State Court Action was filed, the Debtors filed their Chapter 7 petition on September 15, 2003. Because of the bankruptcy filing the state court entered an order on September 23, 2003 which (i) dismissed the action as to the Debtors only, and (ii) provided a procedure for restoring the matter to the active trial calendar if relief from the automatic stay was obtained. Six days later, on September 29, 2003, the Debtors removed the State Court Action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. By order of the Hon. William G. Bassler dated October 6, 2003 the litigation was referred to the bankruptcy court and was assigned adversary proceeding number 03-2681.

In January 2004 the Debtors moved before this court to dismiss the complaint. Among the grounds for dismissal the Debtors alleged (i) the matter had been dismissed by the state court and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded continuation of the litigation in bankruptcy court, (ii) the fraudulent conveyance cause of action was barred by the applicable New Jersey statute of limitations, and (iii) the cause of action, if any, belonged to the bankruptcy estate. Opposition to the Debtors' motion was filed by Broadwhite and the Trustee. The court found that the cause of action belonged to the bankruptcy estate, and that the complaint stated a fraudulent conveyance cause of action. It also determined that the Debtors' grounds for dismissing the complaint were without foundation and entered an order dated May 5, 2004 denying the Debtors' motion to dismiss the complaint.

While the Debtors' motion was pending, the Trustee moved to be added as the party plaintiff and to amend the complaint to allege bankruptcy jurisdictional provisions, to add Bankruptcy Code §§ 544 and 550 as grounds for recovery of the Property, and to clarify the relief sought against Decrouy. The Debtors cross-moved for denial of the Trustee's motion, asserting the following grounds for denial:

a) Not all parties were properly served in the State Court Action, and no summons from the Bankruptcy Court had been served;

b) The State Court Action was dismissed with regard to the Debtors;

c) The discharge order precluded the Trustee from proceeding;

d) The Debtors were not insolvent at the time of the transfers;

e) The New Jersey statute of limitations barred the Trustee from proceeding; and

f) The Trustee failed to serve the Debtors with the application to retain counsel to the Trustee.

On August 27, 2004 the court issued an opinion and order granting the relief sought by the Trustee and denying the Debtors' cross-motion. The court's decision is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

The Debtors' subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied by Letter Opinion and Order dated November 18, 2004. The court's Letter Opinion is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Rather than appeal the ruling, the Debtor's filed a new motion for dismissal that repeated their earlier assertions for dismissal. This was denied as well. Undeterred, the Debtors recycled their allegations into a "Motion for an Order Dismissing Amended Complaint Under Rule 7012(b), and/or For Summary Judgment Under Rule 7056 and/or To Renew Under F.R. Cv.P. 60(b) Defense Motion to Vacate This Court's August 27, 2004 Order Authorizing Substitution of Trustee As Party Plaintiff and Amending Complaint." Because all of these matters had been previously addressed, the court denied this motion as well. Indeed, up to the entry of the filing injunction in March 2006 the Debtors repeatedly filed motions which simply restated each of the arguments that the court found meritless. Additionally, in the main case, 03-40283, the Debtors opposed the Trustee's retention of counsel by merely repeating the very same arguments they advanced in adversary proceeding 03-2681. When their objections were overruled by the court, they simply retooled their objections into motions to remove the Trustee. A comprehensive recitation of each motion and its disposition would unreasonably burden this opinion. However, attached to this opinion as Exhibit 3 are the court dockets for the adversary proceeding and main case, which reveal the repetitive and voluminous nature of the filings by the Debtors.

It was also necessary to enter a filing injunction with regard to pleadings filed by Hugh MacTruong. In the adversary proceeding 03-2681, Hugh MacTruong repeatedly advanced arguments identical to those advanced by the Debtors; these were likewise found to be without merit. Additionally in February 2006 Hugh MacTruong filed an action in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey. Bergen County, Law Division, against the Trustee and his counsel claiming abuse of process. Hugh MacTruong's complaint essentially asserted that the trustee lacked authority to seek recovery of the Property from him and that all of the Trustee's actions were undertaken with the intention to cause harm to him and the Debtors. After the Trustee removed the matter to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452 and Bankruptcy Rule 9027, the Trustee moved to dismiss the complaint. On April 12, 2006, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice inasmuch as the Trustee's prosecution of adversary proceeding 03-2681 is well within the scope of his duties under Bankruptcy Code § 704. Thereafter, at the request of the Trustee, and because Hugh MacTruong's claims were devoid of legal or factual support, the Court entered an order on May 18, 2006 that prevented Hugh MacTruong from filing any papers in any state or federal forum without first obtaining leave of this Court.

Beginning in 2006, the Debtors focused much of their efforts on the appellate process; appealing various decisions rendered in the main bankruptcy case and in the adversary proceeding. As has been true with regard to the Debtors' various motions, the appeals have also been found to be either procedurally or substantively deficient. Since 2006, the Debtors have filed eleven appeals, nine of which have been either dismissed or determined adversely to the Debtors. The two most recent appeals have not yet been considered by the district court.

However, the litigation in the bankruptcy courts did not abate. In October 2006 the court granted the Trustee's motion for summary judgment, avoiding the transfer of the Property from the Debtors to Decrouy, and the transfer from Decrouy to Hugh Mac Truong.

Approximately one month later the Trustee was before the court again to request amendment of the summary judgment orders to include subsequent transferees. It appears that just before the Trustee filed his summary judgment motion Hugh MacTruong deeded the property to an entity known as MT-EARS LLP. The existence of this entity was never revealed to the Trustee or the court either while the motion was pending or at the hearing. Further, several days after the hearing on the summary judgment motion, on October 16, 2006, MT-EARS LLP conveyed title to the Property to an entity known as To-Viet-Dao LLP ("To-Viet-Dao"). Mac Truong executed the deed as the general partner for MT-EARS LLP. The deed to To-Viet-Dao was recorded on October 27, 2006. The Trustee only learned of these transfers as a result of a title search. On December 7, 2006, based on the record before it, the court entered a supplemental order granting summary judgment avoiding the transfer to MT-EARS LLP and the subsequent transfer to To-Viet-Dao LLP. Additionally, in order to foreclose any further transfers of the Property, the court entered an order enjoining the Debtors, the adversary defendants, or any entity acting on their behalf from further transferring the Property.

According to formation documents the Trustee obtained from the State of New Jersey the general partners of MT-EARS LLP are Mac Truong and Maryse MacTruong.

The December 7^th order, as well as the earlier orders granting summary judgment were appealed by the Debtors. The summary judgment orders were affirmed by the Hon. Garrett Brown on July 5, 2007.

Because of the surreptitious transfer of the Property to To-Viet-Dao, and to ensure the Debtors' cooperation with the Trustee, the court entered an order on December 7, 2006 that required the Debtors to provide the Trustee, his representatives, and any prospective purchaser with access to the Property. Regrettably, the Debtors' cooperation was not forthcoming and on February 15, 2007, the Court entered an order that (i) required the Debtors to vacate the Property by April 1, 2007 and (ii) authorized the Trustee, with the assistance of the U.S. Marshal, if necessary, to take possession of the Property.

Presumably because (i) the Debtors were not finding the courts in the District of New Jersey to be hospitable and (ii) they sought to delay their removal from the Property, the Debtors caused To-Viet-Dao LLP to file a Chapter 13 petition in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on March 15, 2007. Despite this court's avoidance of the transfer of the Property, the To-Viet-Dao petition scheduled the Property as an estate asset. Based on the To-Viet-Dao bankruptcy, the Debtors informed the Trustee that the automatic stay in the To-Viet-Dao bankruptcy prevented the Trustee from continuing his efforts to sell the Property. Further, in July 2007, on an affirmation of Maryse Mac Truong, To-Viet-Dao obtained entry of an Order to Show Cause for the Trustee to demonstrate why he should not be stayed from proceeding against the Property, and for a determination of the ownership of the Property. The Trustee filed extensive papers in opposition, including Judge Brown's opinion, which upheld the bankruptcy court's orders that avoided the transfers of the Property. After reviewing the Trustee's papers and relying in significant measure on Judge Brown's opinion, the Hon. James M. Peck found that To-Viet Dao had no interest in the Property. Judge Peck specifically noted that Judge Brown's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's orders setting aside the transfers of the Property occurred eight days before To-Viet Dao filed its request for an Order to Show Cause. See Ex. 4 infra at 9. Judge Peck was understandably concerned that the affirmation in support of the Order to Show Cause did not fully set out the proceedings that occurred in the New Jersey case. He stated:

The Chapter 13 Case was subsequently converted to a Chapter 11 case because a limited liability company is not eligible for Chapter 13 relief.

At the time that the affirmation in support of [the] order to show cause was presented to this Court on Friday, July 13th, the affirmation, which speaks for itself, made no reference to the various court orders including the memorandum decision of Chief Judge Brown relating to this property. As a result, this Court was misled and based upon the history of this litigation, this Court believes intentionally misled by an affirmation that failed to include material information that was necessary in order to make the affirmation clear and understandable.

The relief requested is not obtainable as a matter of law. It is apparent based upon this record that at the time To-Viet-Dao, LLP commenced a Chapter 13 case in March of 2007, the transfer of 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey to this debtor had already been avoided and set aside by final orders of the bankruptcy court for the District of New Jersey. Those orders, to the extent appealed to the District Court, have now been affirmed.

There are serious questions of misconduct here; misconduct, misrepresentation, and bankruptcy abuse for which the individual responsible should be held accountable.

Ex. 4 infra at 11. At the conclusion of the hearing, the To-Viet Dao bankruptcy case was dismissed with prejudice and a one-year nationwide injunction against further filings was entered. Id. at 19.

Just one day after the hearing before Judge Peck, on July 19, 2007, Mac Truong filed an individual Chapter 13 petition in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The case was assigned to Judge Peck, who scheduled a Case Management Conference, at which Mac Truong was required to appear and give testimony as to whether his Chapter 13 case was filed in good faith. After consideration of Mac Truong's testimony, the papers filed by the Trustee and the United States Trustee, Judge Peck dismissed Mac Truong's Chapter 13 case with prejudice and with a one-year nationwide injunction prohibiting further filings by Mac Truong and Maryse MacTruong. Ex. 5 infra at 34, 38.

On the same date that Mac Truong filed his Chapter 13 case in New York, he filed in the New Jersey bankruptcy court a document captioned "Notice of Withdrawal of Joint Chapter 7 Petition," which contained language purporting to make the withdrawal effective immediately. By correspondence dated July 20, 2007 this court informed Mr. Truong that a motion on notice to all parties was required for dismissal of the Debtors' case and that his notice was deficient and would not be acted upon by the court.

Thereafter, at the Trustee's request, this court issued an order on July 30, 2007, which confirmed that the summary judgment orders as well as the order directing the removal of the Debtors from the Property remained in effect. This court deemed it necessary to issue such an order because of the Debtors' contentions that (i) Judge Peck's dismissal of Mac Truong's Chapter 13 case also resulted in a dismissal of the Chapter 7 case pending before this court and (ii) the purported dismissal of the Chapter 7 case nullified the order which directed the removal of the Debtors from the Property.

Despite all of the Debtors' legal maneuvering, the removal of the Debtors took place without incident on August 3, 2007. On the morning of August 3rd, the U.S. Marshals, accompanied by members of the Teaneck Police Department, entered and secured the Property after Mac Truong left the premises.

However, the Trustee's removal of the Debtors from the Property did not end the Debtors' litigation efforts. Rather, it appears to have triggered the Debtors' most recent spate of litigation in non-bankruptcy court venues. Just five days after the Debtors were removed from the Property, Mac Truong filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York requesting a declaratory judgment that the Trustee lacked authority to administer the Property and requesting $5,000,000 in damages for robbery or conversion of assets. On August 20, 2007 the Debtor's complaint was dismissed by the Hon. Laura Taylor Swain based on Mac Truong's failure to obtain leave of court to file the complaint, as required by an order of the Hon. Shira Scheindlin dated June 27, 2006. See Ex.6 infra.

As will be seen later in this opinion, that order was the second filing injunction issued by Judge Scheindlin. The June 27, 2006 order was a product of a suit commenced by Mac Truong against the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department ("Committee") and others for the alleged violation of his rights to due process and freedom, as well as defamation and libel. Judge Scheindlin not only dismissed the complaint but also enjoined Mac Truong from filing another complaint because of his "history of vexatious and frivolous litigations. Ex. 6 infra at 17.

Even this disciplinary matter has a history in this court before it reached Judge Scheindlin. Just prior to the Debtor's filing bankruptcy case 03-40283, Truong was suspended from the practice of law, as reflected in an order issued by the Appellate Division, First Department. See In Re Truong, 2 A.D.3d 27, 768 N.Y.S.2d 450 (N.Y.App.Div. 2003) (per curiam). In November 2003, Truong removed the disciplinary proceeding to the bankruptcy court purportedly pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1452. However, on a motion for remand brought by counsel for the Committee this court remanded the disciplinary proceeding by order dated February 18, 2004. The court's decision was grounded in the fact that the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1452 excepts from removal a governmental unit's action to enforce its police or regulatory power. Ultimately, Truong was disbarred as set forth in a 2005 opinion and order from the Appellate Division, First Department. See In re Truong, 22 A.D.3d 62, 800 N.Y.S.2d 12 (N.Y.App.Div. 2005) (per curiam).

Searching for another venue in which to press his arguments regarding the Trustee's administration of the bankruptcy case, on September 7, 2007 Mac Truong filed criminal complaints against the Trustee and Barbara Ostroth ("Ms. Ostroth") with the Teaneck Police Department. The complaints focused on the alleged misconduct by the Trustee and Ms. Ostroth with regard to the Property. It accused the Trustee and Ms. Ostroth of illegal possession of the Property, theft of personal property and unlawful breaking and entering. After conducting a probable cause hearing on September 19, 2007, the Teaneck Municipal Court dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause.

Undeterred by the dismissal of the above described complaint, Mac Truong again filed a criminal complaint against the Trustee, this time adding Adam Brief ("Mr. Brief"), the Trustee's counsel, as a defendant. The primary claim in this complaint was that the Trustee and Mr. Brief offered "a false instrument for filing". The allegedly false instrument was the Trustee's motion to dismiss the September 2007 complaint, which stated that Mac Truong left the property of his own accord, and that no forcible entry onto the Property was required. On November 28, 2007 the Teaneck Municipal Court once again dismissed all charges for lack of probable cause.

The Trustee advises that Mac Truong also filed a second complaint against Ms. Ostroth which was likewise dismissed by the Teaneck Municipal Court for lack of probable cause.

Unbowed by his lack of success in Teaneck Municipal Court, Mac Truong filed criminal charges against the Trustee in the Municipal Court of Newark and the Municipal Court of Parsippany-Troy Hills. The complaint in the Newark court also named as a defendant Bruce Etterman ("Mr. Etterman"), special counsel for the Trustee. The Trustee moved to dismiss the charges in both courts, but as of the hearing date on the Trustee's motion to enlarge the filing injunction, the matters had not been heard.

The frivolous and vexatious nature of the criminal charges cannot be overstated. The charges against the Trustee and Mr. Etterman are emblematic of Mac Truong's cavalier approach to both the facts and the law. As part of his submission to the Third Circuit in connection with one of the Debtors' appeals, Mr. Etterman included as an exhibit the schedule of unsecured creditors that the Debtors filed with their bankruptcy petition. Mac Truong asserts that the schedule is a false statement because he and his wife have received their Chapter 7 discharge. By his analysis the elimination of personal liability for their debts thereby eliminates their creditors and there is no basis for the Trustee to continue his efforts to sell the Property. This analysis of the Bankruptcy Code is flawed and his motions and cross-motions to dismiss his case or remove the Trustee on this basis have been rejected by this court on various occasions. Accordingly, Mac Truong's criminal charges lack foundation.

Bankruptcy Code § 101(10)(A) defines a creditor as an entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose at or before the order for relief. By the Debtors own admission on their schedules they had creditors when they filed for bankruptcy. Additionally the court's claim register of filed proofs of claim reveal claims amounting to $785,096.25. Finally, Bankruptcy Code § 727(b) makes it plain that the discharge merely discharges a debtor from personal liability on claims that arose before the petition date. It does not eliminate the existence of creditors, whose claims can be satisfied from funds in the bankruptcy estate if the Trustee finds assets.

It is important to understand that the litigation history just recited is only the most recent history. The litigation that precipitated both the present case and the Debtors' prior Chapter 11 case, 00-37093, actually began in the 1990's. In approximately 1997, Mac Truong filed suit against several defendants over the ownership of various investment accounts maintained at Charles Schwab Co. The matter was fully litigated in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York and determined adversely to Mac Truong. Mac Truong's efforts to relitigate the matter in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York were also unsuccessful. In 2003, Judge Sidney Stein enjoined the Debtors from further litigation against these defendants due to the Debtors harassing and vexatious litigation tactics. See Ex. 7, 8 infra. Debtors' efforts to further relitigate these matters in this bankruptcy court were also rejected by the court. See Ex. 9 infra.

Truong followed the same pattern with regard to his landlord/tenant dispute with Broadwhite. In 1995, Broadwhite commenced an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against both Debtors essentially for breach of lease and nonpayment of rent. Eventually a bench trial was held before the Justice Harold Tompkins. On January 6, 2000, Justice Tompkins rendered an oral decision granting judgment in favor of Broadwhite, and on January 20, 2000 an order was entered against the Debtors in the amount of $356,509.83. Debtors appealed Justice Tompkins's decision and on May 7, 2002 the trial court's decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The Debtors thereupon moved for reargument, or alternatively, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the State of New York. That motion was denied in October 2002. However, even before the appeal of Justice Tompkins's decision could be decided by the Appellate Division, the Debtors sought to overturn the state court judgment by commencing suit against Justice Tompkins and others in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Both that complaint and the amended complaint were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As part of the order dismissing the amended complaint, the Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin directed that the Debtors were enjoined from filing any new lawsuits related to the Broadwhite state court action without prior leave of court. See Ex. 10 infra. Regrettably, Judge Scheindlin's injunction only temporarily ended Mac Truong's litigation. As we know, once Broadwhite began its efforts to enforce its judgment the Debtors filed for bankruptcy in the District of New Jersey and all of the events described above began to unfold.

The Judgment in this case caused Broadwhite to institute the suit for fraudulent transfer that was removed to this court by the Debtors.

II.

The authority of a district court to restrict the activity of abusive litigants is well recognized. Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 901 F.2d 329, 332-33 (3d Cir. 1990); Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989); Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d 1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986) (en banc); In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254, 1262 (2d Cir. 1984); In re Green, 669 F.2d 779, 785 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (the right of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional).

This ability to restrict a litigant's access to the court is frequently grounded in the court's inherent authority to manage its jurisdiction and in the All Writs Act. That statute provides in pertinent part that "[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The Third Circuit has succinctly summarized the reasoning for reliance on the All Writs Act as follows:

It is well within the broad scope of the All Writs Act for a district court to issue an order restricting the filing of meritless cases by a litigant whose manifold complaints raise claims identical or similar to those that already have been adjudicated. The interests of repose, finality of judgments, protection of defendants from unwarranted harassment, and concern for maintaining order in the court's dockets have been deemed sufficient by a number of courts to warrant such prohibition against relitigation of claims.

In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443, 445 (3d Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). Thus, in Oliver the court agreed with the First and District of Columbia Circuits that "a continuous pattern of groundless and vexatious litigation can, at some point, support an order against further filings of complaints without the permission of the court." Id. at 446.

Oliver was also quick to point out that (i) litigiousness alone is not an adequate basis for an injunction that restricts access to the court, and (ii) since such an order is an extreme remedy it should be used only in extreme circumstances. Id. at 445-46. Thus, the court must be careful to tailor the remedy so that access to the court is not unreasonably burdened.

In determining whether to issue a filing injunction the court must determine "whether a litigant who has a history of vexatious litigation is likely to continue to abuse the judicial process and harass other parties." Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986). Plainly, the Debtors have demonstrated an inclination for repetitive and vexatious litigation and it is doubtful that they will desist. They have repeatedly attempted to relitigate in this bankruptcy court and in the District Court for the Southern District of New York matters that were commenced in the mid 1990's and fully litigated in the state courts of New York. When faced with rulings that displeased them, they peppered this court with repeated motions for reconsideration or renewed motions for summary judgment, all without setting forth any new facts or law to support them. Likewise, the District Court for the District of New Jersey has been barraged with appeals. Some of the appeals have been dismissed due to procedural failures by the Debtors, and others have been decided adversely to the Debtors. Their litigiousness has caused Judges Scheindlin and Stein of the Southern District of New York, Judge Peck of the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, and this court to issue filing injunctions designed to prevent the flow of frivolous pleadings produced by the Debtors.

Moreover, the Debtors' filings have been characterized by misstatements of fact and mischaracterizations of law as amply demonstrated in the exhibits attached to this opinion. The Debtors' most recent filings with the Teaneck Municipal Court alleging that the Trustee and Ms. Ostroth were acting unlawfully in marketing and entering onto the Property demonstrate that in all likelihood the Debtors will continue to cast about for new venues to relitigate matters. They are also illustrative of the lack of foundation for the Debtors' court filings. As is readily evident in the record of this bankruptcy case, this court unwound the fraudulent transfers and revested the property in the bankruptcy estate. This ruling was affirmed, the Trustee was empowered by this court to take possession of the Property after the Debtors' refusal to cooperate with the Trustee, Ms. Ostroth was retained by court order to market the Property, and in selling the Property the Trustee was fulfilling his obligations under Bankruptcy Code § 704. The Debtors, as participants in each and every matter before this court have full knowledge of these facts. Moreover, the unfounded allegations in Teaneck Municipal Court are particularly egregious given the fact that Mac Truong is an attorney by training, though now disbarred.

All of this endless litigation has produced needless expense and delay to the bankruptcy estate. Additionally the allegations against the Trustee and his professionals have unnecessarily forced them to incur the cost of personally defending themselves. Seeing no end in sight, the Trustee now asks the court to expand the filing injunction it entered on March 20, 2006. Under the terms of that filing injunction the Debtors were enjoined from any filings in the main bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding 03-2681 without first obtaining leave of court. The filing injunction requires the Debtors to submit their proposed document together with a certification stating that (i) the document contains new claims, issues and/or facts that have never before been raised and disposed on the merits by any federal court, (ii) the Debtors believe the facts to be true, (iii) they have no reason to believe that the claims are foreclosed by controlling law, and (iv) the Debtors acknowledge that they may be held in contempt of court if anything in the certification is willfully false. The order also provided that it will remain in effect until both the bankruptcy case and the adversary proceeding are closed. The court believes that this filing injunction comports with the requirements of Abdul-Akbar, Matter of Packer Avenue Associates, 884 F.2d 745,748 (3d Cir. 1989) and In re Oliver.

The Trustee now seeks to enlarge the filing injunction to enjoin the following:

Mac Truong, Maryse Mac-Truong and any individual or entity acting on their behalf shall be and hereby are permanently enjoined from filing any pleadings, motion, cross-motion, complaint, application, or any other paper in any administrative agency, municipal, state or federal court nationwide related to the bankruptcy case bearing Case No. 03-40283; the adversary proceeding bearing Adversary Proceeding No. 03-2681; or any appeal from either matter, or which seeks the imposition of liability, whether administrative, civil or criminal, against Steven P. Kartzman, Esq., Adam G. Brief, Esq., the firm of Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman, LLC, any present, past or future employee of Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman, LLC, Richard B. Honig, Esq., Bruce S. Etterman, Esq., the firm of Hellring, Lindeman Goldstein Siegel, LLP, and any present, past or future employee of Hellring, Lindeman Goldstein Siegel, LLP, Barbara Ostroth, Coldwell Banker, and any present, past or future employee of Coldwell Banker, or any other professional retained by the Trustee in the main bankruptcy case or the adversary proceeding, without leave of this Court.

As with the current filing injunction, the proposed filing injunction requires that a written certification be submitted with the proposed document. The Trustee requests that the certification include statements that (i) the new claims, issues or facts are not barred by principles of claim or issue preclusion, (ii) the requesting party believes that the claims can withstand a motion to dismiss, and that the claims are not violative of a court order. Further, the Trustee asks that "[i]f papers are filed in the absence of leave from this court, the clerk of the respective court is authorized and directed to immediately and summarily strike the filing upon receipt of a copy of this Order." Finally, the Trustee proposes that this court retain jurisdiction to enforce the injunction and impose sanctions.

For the most part, the factual record supports the expanded filing injunction requested by the Trustee. In particular, the court finds it appropriate to require the Debtors, whether acting individually, jointly or by proxies, to seek leave of this court prior to commencing any new actions in any tribunal that arise out of or relate to bankruptcy case 03-40283 or 03-2681, that seek relief against the Trustee and his court authorized professionals who have assisted him in the administration of this case. Notably, this relief is not without precedent. The Second Circuit in Martin-Trigona v. Lavien (In re Martin-Trigona), 737 F.2d 1254, 1263 (2d Cir. 1984) found that to protect federal jurisdiction it was appropriate to "shield federal litigants, their counsel, court personnel, their families and professional associates from Martin-Trigona's vexatious litigation in all courts, state or federal." As in the Martin-Trigona case, these Debtors have engaged in meritless litigation and have forced the Trustee and his professionals to defend themselves in various fora. Accordingly, to protect the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction, it is essential to shelter from harassment those individuals whose services are essential to the functioning of the bankruptcy system.

To the extent the Trustee proposes to require the Debtors and their proxies to obtain leave of this court before they file any further pleadings, motions of other papers in matters currently pending in other courts or agencies, this court believes that it lacks the authority to grant such relief. Such an injunction exceeds the gatekeeping function of a filing injunction and actually impinges on the authority and jurisdiction of other courts. However, to the extent that a motion is pending in any non-bankruptcy forum, the Debtors must submit the expanded filing injunction and this opinion with all of its exhibits, along with any motion or pleading it files.

Similarly, this court finds that the Debtors cannot be required to seek leave of this court prior to filing an appeal. Particularly if an appeal is taken from an order of this court, it is inappropriate for it to decide whether the appeal has sufficient merit. Likewise, it would be an unwarranted intrusion for this bankruptcy court to interfere with the appellate process of another court. However, the Debtors shall be required to submit with the appeal a copy of the expanded filing injunction and this opinion with all of its exhibits.

The court has taken the unusual step of appending exhibits to its opinion in order to evidence the Debtors' practice of relitigating matters. The requirement that the Debtors submit the expanded filing injunction and the opinion in connection with a motion for reconsideration or an appeal is intended to provide the other tribunals with the Debtors' litigation history, and thus a greater context for consideration of the specific issue before them.

CONCLUSION

The factual record before the court reveals that the Debtors have engaged in duplicative and vexatious litigation, and that they are likely to persist in such conduct. As a result, enlargement of the March 20, 2006 filing injunction is warranted.

Exhibit 1

OPINIONBefore: HON. NOVALYN L. WINFIELDAPPEARANCES:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY In Re: Case No.: 03-40283 (NLW) Mac Truong and Maryse Mac-Truong, Chapter 7 Debtors. Broadwhite Associates, Plaintiff(s), Adv. Proc. No.: 03-2681 v. Mac Truong, Maryse Mac-Truong, Sylvaine DeCrouy, and Hugh Mac-Truong, Defendants. Bruce S. Etterman, Esq. Hellring, Lindeman, Goldstein Siegel, LLP One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Special Counsel for Trustee, Steven P. Kartzman Mac Truong, Pro Se 327 Demott Avenue Teaneck, NJ 07666

Steven P. Kartzman, the Chapter 7 Trustee ("Trustee") brings a motion for his substitution as plaintiff in the above adversary proceeding and to amend the complaint. The Trustee has the consent of the Plaintiff Broadwhite Associates ("Broadwhite") for his substitution, but the Debtors, Mac Truong and Maryse Mac-Truong (Collectively "Debtors") object to the substitution and the amendment of the complaint. As set forth in the following paragraphs the Court finds that the Trustee may be substituted as Plaintiff and the complaint amended.

This Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and § 157(a) and the Standing Order of Reference issued by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 23, 1984. This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H), The following shall constitute the findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052.

FACTS

The instant litigation began in April, 2003 in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Bergen County, Chancery Division ("State Court Action") on a complaint brought by Broadwhite to set aside the Debtors' transfer of real property. In 1999 the Debtors had apparently transferred the real property to Maryse Mac-Truong's sister, Sylvaine Decrouy ("Decrouy"). Subsequently, in June, 2001 Sylvaine Decrouy transferred the real property to the Debtors' son, Hugh Mac-Truong.

Several months after the State Court Action was filed, on September 15, 2003 the Debtors filed the instant Chapter 7 case. Because of the bankruptcy, an order was entered in the State Court Action on September 23, 2003 which dismissed the State Court Action as to the Debtors only, and which provided a procedure for restoring the matter to the active trial calendar in the event relief from the automatic stay was obtained. Several days later, on September 29, 2003 the Debtors removed the State Court Action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The litigation was thereafter referred to this Court by Order of the Hon. William G. Bassler, dated October 6, 2003.

In January, 2004 the Debtors moved to dismiss the complaint. Among the grounds for dismissal the Debtors alleged (i) the matter had been dismissed by the State Court and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes continuation of the litigation in bankruptcy court, (ii) the fraudulent conveyance cause of action is barred by the applicable New Jersey statute of limitations, and (iii) the cause of action, if any, belongs to the bankruptcy estate. Opposition to the Debtors' motion was filed by Broadwhite and the Trustee. The court found that the cause of action belonged to the bankruptcy estate, and that the complaint stated a fraudulent conveyance cause of action. It also determined that the Debtors' grounds for dismissing the complaint were without foundation and entered an order dated May 5, 2004 denying the Debtors' motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Trustee has now moved to be substituted as the party plaintiff and to amend the complaint to allege the appropriate jurisdictional provisions, to establish Code § 544 and 550 as authority for the relief sought, to assert alternative sections of the New Jersey fraudulent transfer statute as a basis for relief, and to clarify the relief sought against Sylvaine Decrouy. The Debtors cross-moved for denial of the Trustee's motion. The Debtors assert various grounds for denial of the Trustee's motion:

a) Not all parties were properly served in the State Court Action, and no summons from the Bankruptcy Court has been served;

b) The State Court Action was dismissed with regard to the Debtors;

c) The discharge order precludes the Trustee from proceeding;

d) The Debtors were not insolvent at the time of the transfers;

e) The New Jersey statute of limitations bars the Trustee from proceeding; and

f) The Trustee failed to serve the Debtors with the application to retain counsel to the Trustee.

DISCUSSION

The Chapter 7 Trustee is the "Real Party in Interest"

Rule 17(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which is incorporated in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7017, requires that "every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest." Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a). The real party in interest for the purposes of Rule 17(a) is "[t]he person holding the substantive right to be enforced." T.A. Title Ins. Co. v. Lampl. Sable Makoroff (In re Marcus Hook Dev. Park. Inc.), 153 B.R. 693, 700-01_(Bankr.W.D.Pa. 1993). The purpose of the requirement is to protect individuals from harassment resulting from suits by persons who do not have the power to make final and binding decisions concerning prosecution, compromise and settlement. In re Tainan, 48 B.R. 250, 252 (Bankr. Pa. 1985) citingKenrich Corp. v. Miller. 256 F.Supp. 15 (E.D.Pa. 1966), aff'd, 377 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1967). The Trustee is the "legal representative of the bankruptcy estate with the capacity to sue and be sued". See 11 U.S.C. 323. Furthermore, the gravamen of the Broadwhite complaint is a fraudulent conveyance action which the Trustee is empowered to prosecute pursuant to §§ 544 or 548. Unquestionably then, the Trustee is the real party in interest with regard to this adversary proceeding.

Amendment of Pleadings

Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a) made applicable to this proceeding by Bankruptcy Rule 7015 reads in relevant part that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). In Foman v. Davis, the United States Supreme Court articulated a broad discretionary standard for when leave to amend should be granted. The Court held that:

[i]n the absence of any apparent or declared reason — such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. — the leave sought should, as the rules require, be 'freely given.'

371 US. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230 (1962); see also, Gay v. Petsock, 917 F.2d 768, 772 (3^rd Cir. 1990) (a motion to amend is committed to the sound discretion of the court); Lindsley ex rel. Kolodzieiczack v. Girard School Dist, 213 F. Supp. 2d 523, 528 (W.D. Pa. 2002) (although the decision to grant or deny leave to amend a complaint is committed to the sound discretion of the district court, leave should, consistent with the command of Rule 15(a), be liberally granted). In enunciating this standard, the Supreme Court maintained that the policy and purpose of Rule 15 is to have cases decided on their merits rather than dismissed on technical errors in pleadings. Foman, 371 U.S. at 181-182, 83 S.Ct. at 230.

The Third Circuit has noted that the courts have demonstrated a "strong liberality" in their interpretation of this rule. Hevl Patterson Int'l. Inc. v. F.D. Rich Housing of the Virgin Islands, Inc., 663 F.2d 419, 425 (3d Cir. 1981). The Court emphasized that, "prejudice to the non-moving party is the touchstone for the denial of an amendment." Heyl, 663 F.2d at 425. The burden of showing undue prejudice rests with the party opposing amendment.Kiser v. General Electric Corp., 831 F.2d 423,427 (3d Cir. 1987). This is a "heavier burden than claiming prejudice." Heyl, 663 F.2d at 426. In order to make the requisite showing of prejudice, the adverse party "is required to demonstrate that its ability to present its case would be seriously impaired were the amendment allowed." Dole v. Arco Chemical Co., 921 F.2d 484, 488 (3d Cir. 1990).

In the instant case the Trustee seeks to amend the complaint principally: (a) to allege the appropriate jurisdictional provisions; (b) to allege his authority to pursue the fraudulent conveyance action on behalf of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544; (c) to allege his authority to recover the asset in question for the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550; (d) to clarify the claim against Decrouy; and (e) to add another fraudulent conveyance count based on a different section of the New Jersey Statute.

The Court agrees with the Trustee that there will be no prejudice to Truong by granting leave to amend. No new parties will be added, nor does the Trustee seek to add counts based on other transfers of property. Further, the amendment has been sought merely months after the original complaint was filed. The Trustee indicates that no discovery has taken place since the date of the filing. Thus, there is no evidence of undue delay or prejudice. Additionally, this Court finds no bad faith motive on the part of the Trustee. Lastly, Truong offers no evidence that his defense will be seriously impaired if the amendment is granted. To conclude, the Trustee has demonstrated that an amendment to the complaint is appropriate in this case.

Would the Amended Complaint Survive a Motion to Dismiss

Of course there is no reason to permit an amendment if the amendment does not state a viable cause of action, and case authority supports the proposition that leave to amend should not be granted if the amended pleading would not survive a motion to dismiss. See, Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000) (an adverse party may also succeed in opposing a motion for leave to amend by demonstrating that it is futile); Jablonski v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 292 (3d Cir. 1988) (district court did not abuse its discretion because amendment would have been futile and would not withstand a motion for judgment on the pleadings). In making this determination, a court is to apply the standards applicable to a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). See, Massarsky v. General Motors Corp., 706 F.2d 111, 125 (3d Cir. 1983). Thus, the proposed amended pleading must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and should not be rejected unless it is clear that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief thereunder. Epstein v. Township of Whitehall. 1989 WL 73741, at *2 (E.D.Pa.). Nevertheless, it is not required that the parties "engage in the equivalent of substantive motion practice upon the proposed new claim; [what is required is] that the newly asserted claim appear to be sufficiently well-grounded in fact or law that it is not a frivolous pursuit." Cooper v. Ficarra, 1997 WL 587339, at *3 (E.D.Pa). Thus, under "the liberal pleading standard applied to the amendment of pleadings, courts place a heavy burden on opponents who wish to declare a proposed amendment futile."Pharmaceutical Sales and Consulting Corp. v J.W.S. Delavau Co., Inc., 106 F.Supp.2d 761, 765 (D.N.J. 2000). As demonstrated below Truong's allegations are insufficient grounds to warrant dismissal of this case.

A) Service on Defendants

Truong contends that Broadwhite failed to properly serve the complaint on Decrouy, and thus that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction. Truong further contends that Decrouy is a necessary and indispensable party without whom the litigation must be dismissed. This allegation is disputed by the Trustee. The Trustee contends that Decrouy's sister, Maryse Mac-Truong, was authorized to and did accept service for Decrouy. The Trustee also presents strong evidence in favor of their position. They cite the Witness' Certification of Decrouy in which Decrouy clearly states, "I authorized my sister to sign the Answer that was filed in the Broadwhite fraudulent transfer litigation on my behalf." The Trustee then notes that, even if the Court finds that service was improper, Truong did not made a proper motion to dismiss pursuant to N.J.Ct.R. 4:6-3. Rule 4:6-3 states that R. 4:6-2 defenses including lack of jurisdiction over the person, insufficiency of process, and insufficiency of service of process must be raised by motion within 90 days after service of the answer. The Trustee argues that because Truong did not assert this defense in the requisite time it is waived. Given the factual disagreement between Truong and the Trustee as to whether Decruoy was ever served properly Truong has not proved that service was not proper. Additionally, this is not a reason to deny amendment inasmuch as any alleged improper service can be cured.

B) State Court Order of Dismissal

Truong asserts that amendment of the complaint is unnecessary because this action was dismissed by the New Jersey State Superior Court in October 2003. He further argues that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this court from revisiting that dismissal order. "The Rooker-Feldman doctrine . . . provides that a federal district court lacks the jurisdiction to hear a collateral attack on a state court judgment or to review final determinations of state court decisions." In re Audre, Inc., 216 B.R. 19, 26 (B.A.P. 9^th Cir. 1997); see also, In re Nugent, 254 B.R. 4, 35 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1998). Rooker-Feldman principles prohibit any federal court other than the Supreme Court from reviewing a state court decision directly. Gulla v. N. Strabane Township. 146 F.3d 168, 171 (3d Cir. 1998). The doctrine comes into play only where a party seeks relief that challenges the state court decision directly. The Third Circuit in FOCUS v. Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas put it this way:

When a plaintiff seeks to litigate a claim in a federal court, the existence of a state court judgment in another case bars the federal proceeding under Rooker-Feldman only when entertaining the federal court claim would be equivalent of an appellate review of that order. For that reason, Rooker-Feldman applies only when in order to grant the federal plaintiff the relief sought, the federal court must determine that the state court judgment was erroneously entered or must take action that would render that judgment ineffectual.

75 F.3d 834, 840 (3d Cir. 1996).

This Court is not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine from considering the Trustee's complaint. The dismissal ordered by the New Jersey State Superior Court was purely a procedural ruling and was entered "without prejudice." The Superior Court entered the dismissal order solely because Truong filed a petition in bankruptcy and the automatic stay prevented the State Court Action from going forward. Accordingly, there was no final, substantive ruling which this Court has rendered ineffectual by permitting amendment of the complaint.

C) Effect of Discharge

Truong argues that the claim against him should be dismissed since he is now a discharged debtor. Truong argues that 11 USC § 524(a)(2) bars the Trustee from initiating suits against a discharged debtor, and only allows lawsuits against third-parties to recover assets of the estate. Truong also cites 11 UCS § 704(6) which states, "[t]he trustee shall . . . if advisable, oppose the discharge of a debtor." Since the Trustee did not oppose the discharge in this case, Truong reasons that the Trustee has lost his opportunity to bring this action.

The Trustee correctly notes that creditors do not lose their status as creditors after a discharge. Rather, they are simply restricted to looking to the bankruptcy estate to satisfy their claims. Trustee also notes that this is an asset case. Since Broadwhite had a claim against Truong at the time of the alleged fraudulent transfer, the Trustee can prosecute that claim pursuant to § 544(b). Truong's discharge has no bearing on the Trustee's cause of action to recover an estate asset in order to distribute its value to the creditors. Pursuant to § 524(a), the discharge of debtors merely eliminates Truong's personal liability for payment of his obligations to creditors. Truong's argument that the Trustee's amendment is barred by the one year limitation found in § 550(f) is equally unavailing. That statute limits the filing of an action by the earlier of one year after avoidance of the transfer or the closing or dismissal of the case. Neither triggering event has occurred in this case. Section 550 simply recognizes the difference between avoiding a fraudulent transfer and recovering one. Once avoided under another section, such as § 544, the Trustee is subject to the time limitation of § 550(f) to recover the transfer. Thus, § 550(f) is unaffected by the dismissal of the prior Chapter 11 case because no proceeding had been instituted, and no avoidance of a transfer occurred.

D) Statute of Limitations

Truong claims that the Trustee's fraudulent transfer action is untimely. The Court finds no merit in this allegation. The deed evidencing the transfer of the Truong residence was recorded on January 10, 2000 and Broadwhite's complaint was filed on April 14, 2003. Thus, the action appears to meet the time requirements set forth in N.J.S.A. 25:2-31.

N.J.S.A. § 25:2-25 defines fraudulent transfers. N.J.S.A. § 25:2-31 places limits on the time creditors have to institute fraudulent transfer actions. Section 25:2-31, titled "Extinguishment of cause of action", states:

A cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer or obligation under this article is extinguished unless action is brought:

a. Under subsection a. of R.S. 25:2-25, within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within one year after the transfer or obligation was discovered by the claimant;

b. Under subsection b. of R.S. 25:2-27 or subsection a. of R.S. 25:2-27, within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, or

c. Under subsection b. of R.S. 25:2-27, within one year after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.

N.J.S.A. § 25:2-31.

The limitations described above amounts to a general four-year statute of limitations on fraudulent transfer claims with a one-year tolling provision. See, SASCO 1997 NI. LLC v. Zudkewich,

166 N.J. 579, 582 (N.J. 2001) (referring to § 25:2-31 as a statute of limitations). Accordingly, the Trustee's claims appear timely.

E) Insolvency

Truong alleges there is undisputed evidence that on the date of the fraudulent transfer, he was not insolvent. He argues that at that time he had about $4.5 million in cash and securities in various Schwab bank accounts and $356,000 in his own possession. He also notes that Broadwhite's money judgment amounted to only $14,500. However, Truong's solvency is disputed by the Trustee. The Trustee notes that the only evidence provided by Truong to prove solvency was his own certification. This defense requires further discovery and the Courts finds that the solvency defense is prematurely raised.

F) No Retention Application

Truong objects to the retention of counsel by the Trustee of his bankruptcy estate. According to Bankruptcy Rule 2014 and 11 U.S.C. § 327, the Trustee of a bankruptcy estate must apply for an order authorizing the employment of a law firm as local counsel. Generally, the court must approve the retention of an attorney in bankruptcy before services are performed. This provides notice to all interested parties and gives an opportunity for objections to be made. See. In re Kansas, 798 F.2d 645, 648 (3d Cir. 1986); cited with approvalIn re Flemming, 305 B.R. 389, 392-93 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004). The Trustee must also certify that a copy of said application will be forwarded to all interested parties. In this case, Truong never received the Trustee's application to the court for leave to appoint counsel. When he finally received the application, Truong then objected to the Trustee's application to appoint his own firm.

The Trustee concedes that he failed to serve his application to Truong as required by local Bankruptcy Rule 2014(a). However, this Court concludes that the failure to serve the retention application is regrettable, but unrelated to the merits of this adversary proceeding. The Court will not dismiss the adversary claim because of a failure to serve the attorney retention application.

Conclusion

The Trustee is a "real party in interest" to this adversary proceeding and should be substituted in as plaintiff. In conformity with the policy of Rule 7015, this Court will grant the Trustee leave to amend the complaint. The Court will issue an order in accordance with this opinion.

Exhibit 2

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTLetter Opinion

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY M. L. KING JR. FEDERAL BUILDING 50 WALNUT ST., 3RD FLOOR NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 07102 201 645-2187 NOVALYN L. WINFIELD BANKRUPTCY JUDGE November 18, 2004 Mac and Maryse Mac-Truong 325 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Bruce S. Etterman, Esq. Hellring, Lindeman, Goldstein Siegel, LLP One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 RE: Mac Truong and Maryse Mac-Truong Case No.: 03-40283 (NLW) Steven P. Kartzman, Trustee v. Mac Truong, et al Adv. No.: 03-2681 (NLW) — Original on File with the Clerk's Office Dear Litigants:

This matter came before the Court on motion by the debtor/defendants, Mac and Maryse Truong ("the Truongs") to vacate the Court's order dated August 27, 2004 which authorized the substitution of the Trustee as plaintiff in the above adversary proceeding, and amendment of the complaint. The Trustee opposes the relief sought on the ground that the Truongs have not demonstrated any basis for the Court to reconsider its prior decision.

This court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and § 157(a) and the Standing Order of Reference issued by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 23, 1984. This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H). The following shall constitute the findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052.

In effect, the Truongs' motion is one for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration is not a means for a party to reargue what it has already presented to the Court. Cartaret Savings Bank, F.A. v. Shushan, 712 F. Supp. 705, 709 (D.N.J. 1989). Rather, in this District the moving party must "set forth concisely the matters or controlling decisions which the counsel believes the Court has overlooked." Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. Publ'g Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1219 (D.N.J. 1993). Three grounds exist for granting a motion for reconsideration: (i) an intervening change of controlling law, (ii) evidence not previously available has become available, or (iii) reconsideration is necessary to avoid a manifest injustice or to correct a clear error of law." Id., at 1220.

In their motion the Truongs assert that the Court overlooked (i) the consent order entered in the nondischargeability action brought by Broadwhite Associates, (ii) the alleged defect in service upon Sylvaine Decrouy, (iii) that the motion to amend was sought approximately a year after the original complaint was filed, (iv) the dismissal of the complaint as to the Truongs by the Superior Court after the Truongs filed their Chapter 7 case, and (v) the New Jersey statute of limitations with regard to fraudulent transfers. The Truongs also object to certain legal conclusions made by the Court, such as the effect of their discharge in bankruptcy.

All of the foregoing issues were raised by the Truongs in connection with the previous motion by the Trustee for his substitution as plaintiff and to amend the complaint. The Truongs simply seek to reargue the facts and the law considered by the Court and reflected in its opinion dated August 27, 2004. The Truongs have not shown that any of the criteria for reconsideration have been met. They simply disagree with the conclusion reached by the Court and seek to reargue the matter. This is not a proper use of a motion for reconsideration. They must demonstrate more than "mere disagreement with the court's decision and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision." Database, 825 F. Supp. At 1220. Accordingly, the Truongs' motion to vacate the order of August 27, 2004 is denied.

Exhibit 3

EXTOBDIS, APPEALU.S. Bankruptcy CourtDistrict of New Jersey (Newark)Bankruptcy Petition #: 03-40283-NLWDate Filed:Date Discharged:DebtorMac TruongMac TruongJoint DebtorMaryse Mac TruongMaryse Mac TruongTrusteeMellinger, Sanders Kartzman,Steven P. Kartzman LLCBruce S. EttermanRichard HonigSteven P. KartzmanFiling Date # Docket Text348347349347347347339345344343342341341278340339335337339304338304337304346300336335300334333332328331304330304329304327326304325328304324323320319319302318289322321316309315304314313312311333300317300299310304305309308304307306304305304303302300301300300299295286286298297297295299295296294293 28 U.S.C. 192729528629229129027828927828728628628828528525128427828327828227828126928027827827927827827427727627415127527327227125126925127025926826726626526426226225926625926326125126025925925825525725625525525425125125325225125124925024324824324724924611224523924324424324323722924117723817723917722823624023222724222621320023222522522423319223123044223222221219220216217216218216216214215200213200211235185234210209208185207199206200205204203196120220020120020019219918519819619719119618511951921932121851941921901911851891881881771871861831831851841821811801801771781771771179112176175174173172172171171170170169169168165168165167165166165165162164163162161151160151151159151156151155151154153151152151158157151150147149148148147141147146145144136143141142136141140136139138137136213513413213313213112513012612312512312811212911212712612312512312412312212011911211211811211711211611511511211411212111211311211211211010910810611110610710610610510410310210159995798559767569557100639466936792729168907196698970887387748675858483828180797877767553745773647263715670556958686267546661646362656463626158616056595358there is no basis in Law or equity and/or the exact amount isdisputed and/or subject to counterclaims for malpractice and/orincompetenceresulting in dismissal of Debtor's bankruptcy case.57565554545655535250495148474645444342413639383640363736353432243332243019162928127312624242221202523191618161713161515141312112411651098734121

Issigned to: Judge Novalyn L. Winfield 09/15/2003 Chapter 7 02/18/2004 Voluntary Asset represented by PRO SE 627 Demott Avenue Teaneck, NJ 07666-0000 SSN: xxx-xx-1959 represented by PRO SE 527 Demott Avenue Teaneck, NJ 07666-0000 SSN: xxx-xx-2551 represented by Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman 101 Gibtaltar Drive, Suite 2F 101 Gibraltar Drive Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Suite 2F Morris Plains, NJ 07950 (973) 267-0220 Hellring Linderman One Gateway Center 8th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 (973) 621-9020 Fax: (973) 621-7406 Email: bsetterman@hlgslaw.com Hellring, Lindeman, Goldstein Siegal One Gateway Center 8th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 (973) 621-9020 Email: rbhonig@hlgslaw.com Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman 101 Gibraltar Drive Suite 2F Morris Plains, NJ 07950 (973) 267-0220 Email: kartztee@optonline.net 02/08/2008 Clerk's Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (djv,) (Entered: 02/08/2008) 02/07/2008 Designation of Record On Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong), Statement of Issues on Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong. Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Transmission of Record due 2/22/2008. (djv,) (Entered: 02/08/2008) 02/07/2008 Notice of Appeal to District Court. (related document: Order (Generic), Order (Generic), 330 Document,). Receipt Number UNPAID, Fee Amount $ 255. Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Appellant Designation due by 2/19/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis) (djv,) (Entered: 02/08/2008) 02/03/2008 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 02/03/2008. (Admin.) (Entered: 02/04/2008) 02/01/2008 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 02/01/2008. (Admin.) (Entered: 02/02/2008) 02/01/2008 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 02/01/2008. (Admin.) (Entered: 02/02/2008) 02/01/2008 Transmittal Memo to District Court Re: Certification of Failure to Pay Filing Fee. (related document: Document) (smz,) (Entered: 02/01/2008) 02/01/2008 Document re: Certification of Failure to Pay Filing Fee (related document: Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong) filed by. (smz,) (Entered: 02/01/2008) 02/01/2008 Certificate of Service (related document: Order (Generic), Order (Generic)) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 02/01/2008) 02/01/2008 Correction Notice in Electronic Filing (related document: Transmittal of Record on Appeal (USDC), Transmittal of Record on Appeal (USDC)). Type of Error: COURT HAS MODIFIED DOCKET TEXT OF TRANSMITTAL OF RECORD TO INCLUDE APPEALLEE'S DESIGNATION OF RECORD AND CERT. OF SERVICE WERE SERVED TO USDC, filed by COURT. (cag,) (Entered: 02/01/2008) 02/01/2008 Correction Notice in Electronic Filing (related document: Support, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman). Type of Error: INCORRECT PDF ATTACHED, filed by STEVE KARTZMAN. (cag,) (Entered: 02/01/2008) 02/01/2008 Order authorizing private sale of property of the estate free and clear of all liens and granting related relief (related document: Motion to Sell 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 2/1/2008. (ed,) (Entered: 02/01/2008) 01/31/2008 Letter of January 31, 2008 in support of (related document: Motion to Sell filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 01/31/2008) 01/31/2008 Letter of January 31, 2008 in support of (related document: Motion to Sell filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) Modified (INCORRECT PDF ATTACHED) on 2/1/2008 (cag,). (Entered: 01/31/2008) 01/30/2008 Notice of Docketing Record on Appeal to District Court. Case Number: 08-538. (related document: Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong). Judge Susan D. Wigenton assigned. (ekp,) (Entered: 02/05/2008) 01/30/2008 BNC Certificate of Service — Hearing on Application for Compensation. No. of Notices: 55. Service Date 01/30/2008. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/31/2008) 01/30/2008 Transmittal of Record on Appeal to U.S. District Court (related document: Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong, 302 Appeal Designation filed by Debtor Mac Truong) 319 APPELLEE'S DESIGNATION OF RECORD BY STEVE KARTZMAN AND 320 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE BY STEVE KARTMAN (smz,) Modified ADDED LINKS on 2/1/2008 (cag,). (Entered: 01/30/2008) 01/30/2008 Document re: Certification of Failure to Pay Filing Fee (related document: Order (Generic), 300 Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong) filed by. (smz,) (Entered: 01/30/2008) 01/30/2008 Correction Notice in Electronic Filing. Type of Error: WRONG DATE ON PAPER, filed by THE COURT. THE COURT HAS MADE THE CORRECTION — SEE PAPER #333. (dmd,) Modified on 1/30/2008 (dmd,). (Entered: 01/30/2008) 01/29/2008 Document re: Letter Brief in reply to Mac Truong's Objection to Trustee Motion for Authorization to Conduct Private Sale (related document: Objection filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong, 304 Motion to Sell filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Exhibit A thru K# 3 Certification of Realtor# 4 Certificate of Service) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 01/29/2008) 01/29/2008 Document re: Letter application (related document: Motion to Sell filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 01/29/2008) 01/29/2008 Document re: Letter by the court we reviewed recently submitted objection to the sale of premises known as 327 Demott Ave., Teaneck, NJ. I will not consider your recent papers as opposition to the trustee's motion. (related document: Motion to Sell filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) (ccg,) (Entered: 01/29/2008) 01/28/2008 Document re: Letter by Mac Truong and Mayse Mac Truong objection to trustee's motion to conduct a private sale of property of the estate (related document: Motion to Sell filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 01/29/2008) 01/28/2008 Document re: Letter of Mac Truong filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 01/29/2008) 01/28/2008 Service List in support of (related document: Motion to Sell filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 01/28/2008) 01/25/2008 Application for Compensation for Coldwell Banker, Realtor, period: 3/27/2007 to 1/25/2008, fee: $30,350.00, expenses: $319.67. Filed by Coldwell Banker. Hearing scheduled for 2/26/2008 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 01/25/2008) 01/24/2008 Objection to (related document: Motion to Sell filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 01/29/2008) 01/24/2008 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 01/24/2008. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/25/2008) 01/24/2008 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 01/24/2008. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/25/2008) 01/23/2008 Certification of Service in Support of (related document: Appeal Counter Designation filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) Filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Etterman, Bruce) Text Modified Correcting the Document Type on 1/24/2008 (djv,). (Entered: 01/23/2008) 01/23/2008 Appellee's Designation of Record (related document: Appeal Designation filed by Debtor Mac Truong, 300 Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong) Filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 01/23/2008) 01/23/2008 Clerk's Notice of Fees Due (related document: Order (Generic), Order (Generic)) In the Amount of $ $255.00 (ccg,) (Entered: 01/23/2008) 01/22/2008 Copy of a Judgment Order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, regarding the Appeal from the United States District Court, D.C. Civil Action Case #06-3179. (djv,) (Entered: 01/23/2008) 01/22/2008 Copy of an Opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Regarding the Appeal from the United States District Court, D.C. Civil Action Case #06-3179. (djv,) (Entered: 01/23/2008) 01/22/2008 Clerk's Notice of Fees Due (related document: Order (Generic)) In the Amount of $ $255.00 (ccg,) (Entered: 01/22/2008) 01/21/2008 Certificate of Service (related document: Motion to Sell filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman, 308 Order on Application to Shorten Time, 310 Notice of Information, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman, 306 Application to Shorten Time filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 01/21/2008) 01/20/2008 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 01/20/2008. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/21/2008) 01/20/2008 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 01/20/2008. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/21/2008) 01/20/2008 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 01/20/2008. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/21/2008) 01/20/2008 BNC Certificate of Service — Notice of Sale, Auction or Abandonment. No. of Notices: 54. Service Date 01/20/2008. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/21/2008) 01/18/2008 Order Denying In Forma Pauperis Application Dated January 15, 2008 (related document: Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Debtor, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 1/18/2008. (dlr,) (Entered: 01/30/2008) 01/18/2008 Opinion Filed. (related document: Notice of Appeal to District Court. (related document: Document,) Receipt Number UNPAID, Fee Amount $ 255. Filed by Mac Truong. Appellant Designation due by 1/28/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 1/18/2008. (dlr,) Modified on 1/22/2008 (dlr,). (Entered: 01/22/2008) 01/18/2008 Notice of Information for Private Sale re: 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey (related document: Motion to Sell 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. Hearing date if Objection filed: January 31, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. Objections due by 1/29/2008. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 01/18/2008) 01/18/2008 Correction Notice in Electronic Filing (related document: Notice of Information, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman). Type of Error: Incorrect Objection date was previously listed, filed by Steven Kartzman. Please correct and refile with the court. (sg,) (Entered: 01/18/2008) 01/18/2008 Order Denying In Forma Pauperis Application Dated January 15, 2008 The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 1/18/2008. (dlr,) (ENTERED IN ERROR-INCORRECT DATE) Modified on 1/30/2008 (dmd,). (Entered: 01/18/2008) 01/18/2008 Order Granting Application to Shorten Time (related document: Motion to Sell 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 1/18/2008. Hearing scheduled for 1/31/2008 at 10:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (dlr,) (Entered: 01/18/2008) 01/18/2008 Order Denying Motion re: Denying Debtors' Motion To Amend and Sever Joint Petition. (Related Doc # 243). The following parties were served: Debtor, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 1/18/2008. (dlr,) (Entered: 01/18/2008) 01/17/2008 Application to Shorten Time (related document: Motion to Sell 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) Filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 01/17/2008) 01/17/2008 Notice of Information for Private Sale re: The Debtor's interest in property located at 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. Objections due by 1/29/2008. (Brief, Adam) Modified objection date on 1/18/2008 (sg,). Entered in error, Incorrect objection date was listed). (Entered: 01/17/2008) 01/17/2008 Motion to Sell 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey Filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Exhibit A and B# 3 Proposed Order) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 01/17/2008) 01/16/2008 Copy of Judgment from Circuit Court Dismissing Appeal of Order of DC entered on 7/28/06 and 8/14/06 Re: Appeal on Appellate Case Number: 06-3980. Signed on 1/16/2008. (ekp,) (CV#06-3179) (Entered: 01/17/2008) 01/16/2008 Designation of Record On Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong) Filed by Mac Truong. Transmission of Record due 1/31/2008. (djv,) (Entered: 01/16/2008) 01/16/2008 Clerk's Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong) (djv,) (Entered: 01/16/2008) 01/16/2008 Notice of Appeal to District Court. (related document: Document,). Receipt Number UNPAID, Fee Amount $ 255. Filed by Mac Truong. Appellant Designation due by 1/28/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis) (djv,) (Entered: 01/16/2008) 01/14/2008 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: On 1/7/08, Court Advised Debtor That The Cross Motion Would Not Be Considered (related document: Cross Motion re: For Order Denying Former Trustee Steven P. Kartzman's Motion for Permanent Filing Injunction (related document: Motion re: for an Order Imposing a Filing Injunction Against Mac Truong, Maryse Mac-Truong, and any Person or Enti filed by Debtor Mac Truong) (nds,) (Entered: 01/15/2008) 01/14/2008 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Granted/Court Order (related document: Motion re: for an Order Imposing a Filing Injunction Against Mac Truong, Maryse Mac-Truong, and any Person or Entity Acting on their Behalf filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) (nds,) (Entered: 01/15/2008) 01/09/2008 Certificate of Service (related document: Document, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 01/09/2008) 01/09/2008 Document re: Letter Brief in Reply and Opposition to Cross Motion (related document: Cross Motion, filed by Debtor Mac Truong) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Certification of Steven P. Kartzman# 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 01/09/2008) 01/07/2008 Document re: Letter regarding 12/26/07 request for leave to file a cross-motion in response to the Trustee's motion for further filing injunction which is returable on 1/14/08 at 9:00 am that request is denied. (related document: Cross Motion, filed by Debtor Mac Truong) (ccg,) (Entered: 01/11/2008) 01/06/2008 BNC Certificate of Service — Notice of Proposed Settlement. No. of Notices: 53. Service Date 01/06/2008. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/07/2008) 01/04/2008 Document re: Letter re: Request for Filing Injunction against Mac Truong and Maryse Truong, et al. filed by Saul Ewing on behalf of Barbara Ostroth. (smz,) (Entered: 01/04/2008) 01/03/2008 Notice of Settlement of Controversy, re: Trustee filed Motion for Sanctions pursuant to against attorney that represented To-Viet-Dao, LLP in a Chapter 11 proceeding. Filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. Hearing date if Objection filed: 2/4/2008 at 9:00am. Objections due by 1/23/2008. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 01/03/2008) 01/02/2008 Cross Motion re: For Order Denying Former Trustee Steven P. Kartzman's Motion for Permanent Filing Injunction (related document: Motion re: for an Order Imposing a Filing Injunction Against Mac Truong, Maryse Mac-Truong, and any Person or Entity Acting on their Behalf filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) Filed by Mac Truong. Hearing scheduled for 1/14/2008 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification) (smz,) (Entered: 01/04/2008) 12/29/2007 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 12/29/2007. (Admin.) (Entered: 12/30/2007) 12/29/2007 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 12/29/2007. (Admin.) (Entered: 12/30/2007) 12/27/2007 Letter opinion (related document: Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 12/27/2007. (ed,) (Entered: 12/27/2007) 12/27/2007 Order denying in forma pauperis application dated September 17th, 2007 (related document: Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 12/27/2007. (ed,) (Entered: 12/27/2007) 12/13/2007 Certificate of Service (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 12/13/2007) 12/12/2007 Motion re: for an Order Imposing a Filing Injunction Against Mac Truong, Maryse Mac-Truong, and any Person or Entity Acting on their Behalf Filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. Hearing scheduled for 1/14/2008 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Letter Brief# 2 Certification # 3 Exhibit A thru C# 4 Exhibit D thru F# 5 Exhibit G thru M# 6 Proposed Order) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 12/12/2007) 12/11/2007 Copy of Order by District Judge Susan D. Wigenton Vacating Order of 11/1/07 re in forma pauperis application. (related document: Order (Generic), Order (Generic)). Signed on 12/11/2007. (ekp,) (CV#07-5066) (Entered: 12/13/2007) 11/01/2007 Copy of District Court Order Denying re: Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong. Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 11/1/2007. (nrf,) (Entered: 11/01/2007) 10/19/2007 Notice of Docketing Record on Appeal to District Court. Case Number: 07-5066. (related document: Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong). Judge Susan D. Wigenton assigned. (ekp,) (Entered: 10/30/2007) 10/19/2007 Transmittal of Record on Appeal to U.S. District Court (related document: Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong, 280 Appeal Designation, Statement of Issues on Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong) (djv,) (Entered: 10/19/2007) 09/27/2007 Appellee's Designation of Record (related document: Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong, 280 Appeal Designation., Statement of Issues on Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong) Filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 09/27/2007) 09/25/2007 Certified Copy of Order By District Court Judge Susan D. Wigenton Dismissing Appeal, (related document: Transmittal of Record on Appeal (USDC), Transmittal of Record on Appeal (USDC), 251 Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). Signed on 9/25/2007. (ekp,) (CV#07-3794) (Entered: 09/25/2007) 09/18/2007 Designation of Record On Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong), Statement of Issues on Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong) Filed by Mac Truong. Transmission of Record due 10/3/2007. (djv,) (Entered: 09/19/2007) 09/18/2007 Clerk's Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal filed by Debtor Mac Truong) (djv,) (Entered: 09/18/2007) 09/18/2007 Notice of Appeal to District Court. (related document: Document,). Receipt Number UNPAID, Fee Amount $ 255. Filed by Mac Truong. Appellant Designation due by 9/28/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis) (djv,) (Entered: 09/18/2007) 09/14/2007 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 09/14/2007. (Admin.) (Entered: 09/15/2007) 09/12/2007 Order Granting Application For Compensation for Atkins Appraisal Corporation, fees awarded: $800.00, expenses awarded: $0.00 (Related Doc # 275). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee, and US Trustee. Signed on 9/12/2007. (ed,) (Entered: 09/12/2007) 09/11/2007 Document re: Letter by the Court has reviewed your correspondence and attached motion papers. No hearing will be scheduled inasmuch as your submission is duplicative of prior papers. (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong. Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (ccg,) (Entered: 09/12/2007) 09/04/2007 Application for Compensation for Atkins Appraisal Corporation, Appraiser, period: to, fee: $800.00, expenses: $0. Filed by Atkins Appraisal Corporation. Objection deadline is 9/11/2007. (ed,) (Entered: 09/12/2007) 08/24/2007 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 08/24/2007. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/25/2007) 08/21/2007 Order Granting Application to Employ Atkins Appraisal Corp as Appraiser (Related Doc # 265). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 8/21/2007. (ed,) (Entered: 08/22/2007) 08/06/2007 Notice of Docketing Record on Appeal to District Court. Case Number: 07-3794. (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). Judge Susan D. Wigenton assigned. (ekp,) (Entered: 08/16/2007) 08/06/2007 Transmittal of Record on Appeal to U.S. District Court (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong, 261 Appellee's Designation, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman, 254 Appeal Designation, , Statement of Issues on Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (djv,) (Entered: 08/06/2007) 08/03/2007 Supplemental Objection to Application for Entry of Order Confirming that Summary Judgment Orders and Removal Order Remain in Full Force and Effect. (related document: Application (Generic), Application (Generic) filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong. (smz) (Entered: 08/09/2007) 08/02/2007 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 08/02/2007. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/03/2007) 08/01/2007 Document re: Letter by the court Re objection by Mr. Tuong. (related document: Document) (ccg,) (Entered: 08/01/2007) 08/01/2007 Application For Retention of Professional A. Atkins Appraisal Corp. as Appraiser Filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. Objection deadline is 8/8/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Proposed Order) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 08/01/2007) 07/31/2007 Exhibit A in support of (related document: Support filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 07/31/2007) 07/31/2007 Reply in support of (related document: Application (Generic), Application (Generic) filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certification) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 07/31/2007) 07/30/2007 Document re: Letter objection to former trustee Kartzman's appliction for leave to continue. (related document: Application (Generic), Application (Generic) filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) (ccg,) (Entered: 08/01/2007) 07/30/2007 Order Granting Application Confirming that summary judgement orders and removal order remain in full force and effect (Related Doc # 259). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 7/30/2007. (ed,) (Entered: 07/31/2007) 07/27/2007 Appellee's Designation of Record On Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) Filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) Text Modified on 7/30/2007 (djv,). (Entered: 07/27/2007) 07/25/2007 Certificate of Service (related document: Application (Generic), Application (Generic) filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 07/25/2007) 07/25/2007 Application re: for entry of an Order Confirming that Summary Judgment Orders and Removal Order Remain in Full Force and Effect Filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. Objection deadline is 8/1/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A thru F# 2 Proposed Order) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 07/25/2007) 07/24/2007 Receipt of Fee Amount $ 58.50, Receipt Number 502734 (4.50 Copy Work, $54.00 for 3 Exemplifications). Fee received from Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman (smz,) Modified TEXT on 7/30/2007 (pam). (Entered: 07/27/2007) 07/20/2007 Document re: Letter by the court responding to Debtor(s) Motion recent requests. (related document: Document filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong, 257 Document filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong, 256 Document filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by. (dlr,) (Entered: 07/24/2007) 07/19/2007 Document re: Debtor(s) Notice Of Withdrawal Of Joint Chapter 7 Petition filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (dlr,) (Entered: 07/24/2007) 07/19/2007 Document re: Debtor(s) Request For Leave To File Papers (related document: Document filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (dlr,) (Entered: 07/24/2007) 07/19/2007 Document re: Urgent Order To Show Cause Application filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (dlr,) (Entered: 07/24/2007) 07/17/2007 Designation of Record On Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong), Statement of Issues on Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Transmission of Record due 8/1/2007. (djv,) (Entered: 07/20/2007) 07/16/2007 Virtual Minutes of Hearing held on: 07/16/2007 Subject: MOTION RE: FOR LEAVE TO AMEND AND SPLIT JOINT PETITION INTO TWO SEPERATE INDIVIDUAL PETITIONS UNDER CHAPTER 7 FILED BY MAC TRUONG, MARYSE MAC TRUONG. Proceedings: Withdrawn/Court Order. (vCal Hearing ID (66102)). (related document(s) 243) (nds,) (Entered: 07/18/2007) 07/16/2007 Clerk's Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (djv,) (Entered: 07/16/2007) 07/12/2007 Notice of Appeal to District Court. (related document: Document, 1 Voluntary Petition (Chapter 7)). Receipt Number UNPAID, Fee Amount $ 255. Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Appellant Designation due by 7/23/2007. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service # 2 Application to proceed in Forma Pauperis) (djv,) (Entered: 07/16/2007) 07/12/2007 Reply certification in further in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 07/13/2007) 07/06/2007 Letter Brief in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: For Leave To Amend and Split Joint Petition Into Two Seperate Individual Petitions Under Chapter 7 filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 07/06/2007) 07/06/2007 Document re: Response to Debtors' Request for Leave to File Motion Pursuant to This Court's March 20, 2006 Injunction Order Limiting Filing Fee by letter dated June 22, 2007 filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 07/06/2007) 07/02/2007 Document re: Letter by the court of your most recent motion to remove Mr Kartzman, which was forwarded to the court 6/22/07 no hearing will be scheduled and the alleged new facts do not provide a new basis for removal . . . (ccg,) (Entered: 07/09/2007) 06/29/2007 Supplemental certification in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 07/02/2007) 06/20/2007 Letter reply by Mac Truong and Maryse Mac Truong to Mr Kartzman's opposition. (related document: Opposition filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) (ccg,) (Entered: 06/20/2007) 06/19/2007 Hearing Rescheduled from 06/25/2007. (related document: Motion re: For Leave To Amend and Split Joint Petition Into Two Seperate Individual Petitions Under Chapter 7 filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) Hearing scheduled for 7/16/2007 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (dlr,) (Entered: 06/19/2007) 06/08/2007 Document re: Correspondence to Judge Winfield (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 06/08/2007) 06/04/2007 Motion re: For Leave To Amend and Split Joint Petition Into Two Seperate Individual Petitions Under Chapter 7 Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Hearing scheduled for 6/25/2007 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification In Support) (dlr,) (Entered: 06/05/2007) 05/24/2007 Document re: Letter by the court to Mr Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 05/25/2007) 05/21/2007 Document re: Letter by Yang H HSU. (ccg,) (Entered: 05/24/2007) 05/14/2007 Supplemental reply certification in support of (related document: Motion (Generic) filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 05/25/2007) 05/10/2007 Document re: Reply certification in support of motion. (related document: Motion (Generic) filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) (ccg,) (Entered: 05/25/2007) 05/04/2007 Brief in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: to Remove Debtors from Property filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman, LLC on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (ccg,) (Entered: 05/25/2007) 05/04/2007 Document re: Letter Brief in Opposition to the Debtors' latest request for a hearing on a Motion to Remove Trustee. filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 05/04/2007) 04/30/2007 Document re: Request for leave to file motion. (ccg,) (Entered: 05/24/2007) 04/25/2007 Response to (related document: Response filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman, LLC on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (ccg,) (Entered: 05/25/2007) 04/25/2007 Document re: Letter Brief in Response to Debtor's Letter to Judge Winfield dated April 20, 2007 filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman, LLC. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 04/25/2007) 04/23/2007 Document re: Letter of To-Viet-Dao. (ccg,) (Entered: 05/25/2007) 04/17/2007 Certified Copy of Order By District Court Judge Susan D. Wigenton Affirming Bankruptcy Court Order, (related document: Transmittal of Record on Appeal (USDC), Transmittal of Record on Appeal (USDC), Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). Signed on 4/17/2007. (ekp,) (CV#07-1203) (Entered: 04/19/2007) 04/16/2007 Response to (related document: Document filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 05/24/2007) 04/10/2007 Document re: Letter Brief in Response to Debtors' Letter dated April 1, 2007 filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 04/10/2007) 04/10/2007 Document re: Response to Mac Truong's letter dated April 2, 2007 filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 04/10/2007) 04/09/2007 Document re: Letter of MacTruong and Maryse Mac Truong re 2/15/07 order. (related document: Order (Generic)) (ccg,) (Entered: 05/24/2007) 04/02/2007 Document re: Letter request to file motion. (ccg,) (Entered: 05/24/2007) 04/02/2007 Document re: Letter by Mac Truong, Maryse Mcac Truong. (related document: Order Discharging Debtor) (ccg,) (Entered: 05/24/2007) 03/30/2007 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 03/30/2007. (Admin.) (Entered: 03/31/2007) 03/29/2007 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 03/29/2007. (Admin.) (Entered: 03/30/2007) 03/28/2007 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 03/28/2007. (Admin.) (Entered: 03/29/2007) 03/27/2007 Order Granting Application to Employ Coldwell Banker as Realtor (Related Doc # 214). The following parties were served: Debtor, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 3/27/2007. (ed,) (Entered: 03/27/2007) 03/26/2007 Order Respecting Amendment to Schedule(s) E F (related document: Amended List of Creditors (Fee) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee and US Trustee. Signed on 3/26/2007. (ccg,) (Entered: 03/28/2007) 03/26/2007 Order Respecting Amendment to Schedule(s) E F (related document: Amended List of Creditors (Fee) filed by Debtor Mac Truong. Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee and US Trustee. Signed on 3/26/2007. (ccg,) ENTERED IN ERROR WRONG PDFModified on 3/28/2007 (ccg,). Modified on 3/28/2007 (ccg,). (Entered: 03/26/2007) 03/21/2007 Document re: Letterto request to file Amended schedules. (related document: Amended List of Creditors (Fee) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (ccg,) (Entered: 03/26/2007) 03/21/2007 Amendment to List of Creditors. Receipt Number 501857, Fee Amount $ 26. Filed by Mac Truong. Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 03/26/2007) 03/21/2007 Receipt of Fee Amount S 26.00, Receipt Number 501857 . . . Fee received from Mac Truong (ccg,) (Entered: 03/21/2007) 03/19/2007 Application For Retention of Professional Coldwell Banker as Realtor Filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. Objection deadline is 3/26/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Proposed Order) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 03/19/2007) 03/14/2007 Notice of Docketing Record on Appeal to District Court. Case Number: 07-1203. (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). Judge Madeline C. Arleo assigned. (ekp,) (Entered: 03/22/2007) 03/13/2007 Transmittal of Record on Appeal to U.S. District Court (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong, 202 Appeal Designation filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (djv,) (Entered: 03/13/2007) 03/08/2007 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 03/08/2007. (Admin.) (Entered: 03/09/2007) 03/07/2007 Document re: Letter of Mac Truong and Maryse Mac Truong re motion to convert. (related document: Motion to Convert Case to Chapter 13 filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (ccg,) (Entered: 05/24/2007) 03/07/2007 Document re: request for prior notice on motion to extend time to vacate. (ccg,) (Entered: 05/24/2007) 03/07/2007 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 03/07/2007. (Admin.) (Entered: 03/08/2007) 03/05/2007 Order Denying Motion to Convert Case to Chapter 13 (Related Doc # 185). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 3/5/2007. (dlr,) (Entered: 03/06/2007) 03/05/2007 Opinion Filed (related document: Motion to Convert Case to Chapter 13 filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 3/5/2007. (dlr.) (Entered: 03/05/2007) 03/02/2007 Response to (related document: Document,) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 03/02/2007) 03/01/2007 Appellee's Designation of Record (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong, 202 Appeal Designation filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) Filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 03/01/2007) 02/28/2007 Document re: Letter memorandum of law (related document: 185 Motion to Convert Case to Chapter 13 filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 03/01/2007) 02/26/2007 Virtual Minutes of Hearing held on: 02/26/2007 Subject: MOTION TO CONVERT CASE TO CHAPTER 13 FILED BY MAC TRUONG, MARYSE MAC TRUONG. Proceedings: Reserved. (vCal Hearing ID (44733)). (related document(s) 185) (nds,) (Entered: 02/27/2007) 02/26/2007 Supplemental Opposition in Opposition to (related document: Opposition, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # Exhibit A) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 02/26/2007) 02/23/2007 Designation of Record On Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Transmission of Record due 3/12/2007. (djv,) (Entered: 02/23/2007) 02/23/2007 Clerk's Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (djv,) (Entered: 02/23/2007) 02/23/2007 Notice of Appeal to District Court. (related document: Order (Generic)). Receipt Number UNPAID, Fee Amount $ 255. Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Appellant Designation due by 3/5/2007. (Attachments: # 1 Application to Proceed Informa Pauperis) (djv,) (Entered: 02/23/2007) 02/23/2007 Document re: Application to receive Realtor's report and to retain Realtor to sell property and other pending legal issues. (related document: Motion to Convert Case to Chapter 13 filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (ccg,) (Entered: 02/23/2007) 02/20/2007 Certificate of Service (related document: Opposition, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman, 197 Response filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 02/20/2007) 02/20/2007 Response to (related document: Support filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 02/20/2007) 02/20/2007 letter brief in lieu of a formal brief in Opposition to (related document: Motion to Convert Case to Chapter 13 filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # Certification # 2 Exhibit A thru C) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 02/20/2007) 02/20/2007 Certificate of Service (related document: Order (Generic)) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman, LLC. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 02/20/2007) 02/18/2007 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 02/18/2007. (Admin.) (Entered: 02/20/2007) 02/15/2007 Document re: Letter re: Mac Truong request for hearing on exact amount of allowed debts. (related document: Motion to Convert Case to Chapter 13 filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (ccg,) (Entered: 03/12/2007) 02/15/2007 Letter by Judge Winfield sent to Mac Truong re: Correspondence dated 2/5/07. (Entered: 02/20/2007) 02/15/2007 Order Requiring Debtors To Vacate Property And Granting Related Relief. (Related Doc # 177). The following parties were served: Debtor, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 2/15/2007. (cu,) (Entered: 02/16/2007) 02/13/2007 Virtual Minutes of Hearing held on: 02/13/2007 Subject: MOTION RE: TO REMOVE DEBTORS FROM PROPERTY FILED BY ADAM G BRIEF ON BEHALF OF STEVEN P. KARTZMAN. Proceedings: Relief Granted. (vCal Hearing ID (41817)). (related document(s) 177) (nds,) (Entered: 02/15/2007) 02/09/2007 Reply Certification in support of (related document: Motion to Convert Case to Chapter 13 filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (smz,) (Entered: 02/15/2007) 02/09/2007 Document re: Letter Brief in Reply to (related document: Support filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 02/09/2007) 02/05/2007 Supplemental certification and memorandum of Law in support of (related document: Motion (Generic) filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 02/06/2007) 02/04/2007 BNC Certificate of Service — Hearing. No. of Notices: 54. Service Date 02/04/2007. (Admin.) (Entered: 02/05/2007) 02/02/2007 Certificate of Service (related document: Document filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 02/02/2007) 02/01/2007 Document re: Letter Brief in Opposition to Docketing of Debtors' Proposed Motion to Convert to Chapter 13 filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Exhibit A) (Kartzman. Steven) (Entered: 02/01/2007) 01/23/2007 Motion to Convert Case to Chapter 13 Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Hearing scheduled for 2/26/2007 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) (Entered: 02/02/2007) 01/23/2007 Document re: Letter request to file Motion for converting case to chapter 13 case. (ccg,) (Entered: 02/02/2007) 01/21/2007 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 01/21/2007. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/22/2007) 01/19/2007 Certificate of Service (related document: Order on Application to Shorten Time, 177 Motion (Generic) filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman, 178 Application to Shorten Time filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 01/19/2007) 01/19/2007 Order Denying Application to Shorten Time (related document: Motion re: to Remove Debtors from Property filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee, US Trustee Signed on 1/19/2007. Hearing scheduled for 2/13/2007 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (dlr,) (Entered: 01/19/2007) 01/18/2007 Application to Shorten Time (related document: Motion re: to Remove Debtors from Property filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) Filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 01/18/2007) 01/18/2007 Motion re: to Remove Debtors from Property Filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # Letter Brief# 2 Certification # 3 Exhibit A thru I# 4 Proposed Order) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 01/18/2007) 01/17/2007 Document re: Letter by the Court that Mr. Truong request for hearing to be scheduled is declined. (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (ccg,) (Entered: 01/19/2007) 01/11/2007 Document re: Correspondence to Judge Winfield dated January 9, 2007 filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 01/11/2007) 12/28/2006 Correspondence by Judge Winfield re: Notice of Motion for an Order Enjoining Trustee Steven P. Kartzman from Selling Discharged Debtors (smz,) (Entered: 12/29/2006) 12/07/2006 Correspondence re: Letter with reference to the request to scheduled you Motion for an Order Enjoining filed by. (rh,) (Entered: 12/20/2006) 11/01/2006 Adversary Case (03-2493) Closed. (ed,) (Entered: 11/01/2006) 11/01/2006 Adversary Case (03-2492) Closed. (ed,) (Entered: 11/01/2006) 11/01/2006 Adversary Case (03-2491) Closed. (ed,) (Entered: 11/01/2006) 11/01/2006 Adversary Case (03-2490) Closed. (ed,) (Entered: 11/01/2006) 09/08/2006 Document re: Copy of Notice of Docketing of Record on Appeal in USCA filed in DC. USCA #06-3980. (related document: Document) (ekp,) (CV#06-3179) (Entered: 09/12/2006) 08/30/2006 Document re: Copy of Notice of Appeal filed in DC by Debtor from Order of 8/14/06 Denying Motion for Reconsideration and Order of Dismissal Dated 7/26/06. (related document: Order (Generic)) (ekp,) (CV#06-3179) (Entered: 09/07/2006) 08/14/2006 Certified Copy of Order by District Court Judge Susan Wigenton Denying Motion for Reconsideration (related document: Document). Signed on 8/14/2006. (ekp,) (CV#06-3179) (Entered: 08/15/2006) 08/08/2006 Document re: Certified Copy of Motion filed in DC for Reconsideration of 6/26/06 Order Dismissing Appeal. (related document: Order District Court re: Appeal,) (ekp,) (CV#06-3179) (Entered: 08/15/2006) 08/03/2006 Adversary Case (03-2494) Closed. (gan,) (Entered: 08/03/2006) 07/28/2006 Certified Copy of Order By District Court Judge Susan D. Wigenton Dismissing Appeal, (related document: Transmittal of Record on Appeal (USDC), 167 Certification of Failure to File Designation of Record, 165 Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). Signed on 7/28/2006. (ekp,) (CV#06-3179) (Entered: 08/01/2006) 07/13/2006 Remark — Notice of Docketing of Record on Appeal. CV#06-3179. Judge Susan D. Wigenton. (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). (ekp,) (Entered: 07/18/2006) 07/13/2006 Transmittal of Record on Appeal to U.S. District Court (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (lc,) (Entered: 07/13/2006) 07/13/2006 Certification of Failure to File Designation of Record, (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (lc,) (Entered: 07/13/2006) 05/25/2006 Clerk's Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (msr) (Entered: 05/25/2006) 05/22/2006 Notice of Appeal (related document: Order (Generic)). Receipt Number UNPAID, Fee Amount $ 255. Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Appellant Designation due by 6/1/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Application to proceed in Forma Pauperis) (lc,) (Entered: 05/24/2006) 05/14/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 05/14/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 05/15/2006) 05/14/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 05/14/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 05/15/2006) 05/12/2006 Order Denying Motion For A Hearing On Alleged New Conflict Of Interest. (Related Doc # 151). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 5/12/2006. (cu,) (Entered: 05/12/2006) 05/12/2006 Order Denying Motion For A Hearing On Alleged Conflict Of Interest. (Related Doc # 147). The following parties were served: Debtor, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 5/12/2006. (cu,) (Entered: 05/12/2006) 05/08/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order (related document: Motion re: For an order scheduling a hearing to determine a new Actual conflict of Interest between Trustee Kartzman and the Estate, and for other appropriate relief Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong) (nds,) (Entered: 05/10/2006) 05/01/2006 letter brief in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: For an order scheduling a hearing to determine a new Actual conflict of Interest between Trustee Kartzman and the Estate, and for other appropriate relief filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 05/01/2006) 04/17/2006 Hearing Rescheduled from 4/17/06. (related document: Motion re: For an order scheduling a hearing to determine a new Actual conflict of Interest between Trustee Kartzman and the Estate, and for other appropriate relief Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong) Hearing scheduled for 5/8/2006 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (nds,) (Entered: 04/20/2006) 04/17/2006 Certification in of debtor's motion for an order scheduling a hearing to determine a New actual conflict of interest between trustee Kartzmanand estate, for other appropriate relief in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (ccg,) (Entered: 04/18/2006) 04/17/2006 Correspondence to Judge Winfield in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: For an order scheduling a hearing to determine a new Actual conflict of Interest between Trustee Kartzman and the Estate, and for other appropriate relief filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 04/17/2006) 04/12/2006 Certification for an order scheduling a hearing to determine a new actual conflict of interest between trustee Kartzman and Estate, and other appropriate relief. in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) (Entered: 04/13/2006) 04/12/2006 Document re: Letter request for leave to file pleadings pursuant to this court's March 20, injunction order limiting filing. filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 04/13/2006) 03/29/2006 Second Supplemental Certification in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (dmc,) (Entered: 03/30/2006) 03/27/2006 Document re: Adjournment Request (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 03/27/2006) 03/20/2006 Order Imposing Filing Injunction against Mac Truong and Maryse Mac Truong. Signed on 3/20/2006. (sg,) (Entered: 04/18/2006) 03/20/2006 Order Imposing Filing Injunction against Mac Truong and Maryse Mac Truong. Signed on 3/20/2006. (sg,) INCORRECT PDF ATTACHED, SEE DOC.# 158. Modified on 4/18/2006 (sg,). (Entered: 04/18/2006) 03/17/2006 Motion re: For an order scheduling a hearing to determine a new Actual conflict of Interest between Trustee Kartzman and the Estate, and for other appropriate relief Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Hearing scheduled for 4/17/2006 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) (Entered: 03/22/2006) 02/23/2006 Letter Brief to Judge Winfield in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: Scheduling Hearing to Determine Conflict of Interest Between Trustee and the Estate filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 02/23/2006) 02/23/2006 Response to (related document: Support filed by Debtor Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 02/23/2006) 02/17/2006 Supplemental certification in in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 02/22/2006) 02/14/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: On The Papers (related document: Motion to Reconsider the court's December 27, 05 137 order and granting a trial before a jury to cite trustee Steven p, Kaetzman and his attorneys for Criminal contempt of court Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong) (nds,) (Entered: 02/16/2006) 01/30/2006 Motion re: Scheduling Hearing to Determine Conflict of Interest Between Trustee and the Estate Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Hearing scheduled for 3/6/2006 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Certificate of Service) (msr,) (Entered: 02/01/2006) 01/22/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 01/22/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/23/2006) 01/22/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 01/22/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/23/2006) 01/19/2006 Order Denying Motion or Application for the Entry of an Order to Enforce Court's Decmeber 8, 2005 Order. (Related Doc # 136). The following parties were served: Debtor, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 1/19/2006. (cu,) (Entered: 01/20/2006) 01/17/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order (related document: Motion to Enforce Court's December 8, 2005 Order Dismissing Instant Bankruptcy Case Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong) (nds,) (Entered: 01/18/2006) 01/17/2006 Letter Brief to Judge Winfield in Opposition to (related document: Motion to Reconsider filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 01/17/2006) 01/12/2006 Reply certification in in support of (related document: Motion to Enforce, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 01/13/2006) 01/11/2006 Motion to Reconsider the court's December 27, 05 137 order and granting a trial before a jury to cite trustee Steven p. Kaetzman and his attorneys for Criminal contempt of court Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Hearing scheduled for 2/14/2006 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) Modified on 1/13/2006 (ccg,). Modified on 1/18/2006 (ccg,). Modified on 1/18/2006 (dmd,). (Entered: 01/13/2006) 01/05/2006 Letter brief to Judge Winfield in Opposition to (related document: Motion to Enforce Court's December 8, 2005 Order Dismissing Instant Bankruptcy Case filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 01/05/2006) 12/30/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 12/30/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 12/31/2005) 12/30/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 8. Service Date 12/30/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 12/31/2005) 12/27/2005 Order Denying Motion re: To Remove Trustee. (Related Doc # 112). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee, US Trustee and Movant's Attorney. Signed on 12/27/2005. (djv,) (Entered: 12/28/2005) 12/19/2005 Motion to Enforce Court's December 8, 2005 Order Dismissing Instant Bankruptcy Case Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Hearing scheduled for 1/17/2006 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # Certificate of Service) (msr,) (Entered: 12/20/2005) 12/14/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Notice of Administrative Error. No. of Notices: 53. Service Date 12/14/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 12/15/2005) 12/12/2005 General Notice. Event docketed: A Notice of Dismissal was sent in error. (related document: BNC Certificate of Mailing — Order Dismissing Case). (msr) (Entered: 12/12/2005) 12/10/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 12/10/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 12/11/2005) 12/10/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order Dismissing Case. No. of Notices: 53. Service Date 12/10/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 12/11/2005) 12/08/2005 Order Overruling Debtor's Objection. (related document: Objection to Notice of Information filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee and US Trustee. Signed on 12/8/2005. (zlh,) (Entered: 12/08/2005) 12/01/2005 Document re: Correspondence to Judge Winfield objecting to the form of Order submitted by Mr. Truong filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 12/01/2005) 11/21/2005 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Abandonment Approved/Order To Be Submitted. (related document: Hearing Scheduled. On Objection To Notice Of Abandonment (related document: Notice of Information, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman, 125 Objection to Notice of Information filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (nds,) (Entered: 11/22/2005) 11/21/2005 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Objection Overruled. (related document: Partial Objection to (related document: Notice of Information, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong) (nds,) (Entered: 11/22/2005) 11/15/2005 Second supplemental reply certification in further support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) Modified on 11/16/2005 (ccg,). (Entered: 11/16/2005) 11/14/2005 Third supplemental reply certification in further support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) Modified on 11/16/2005 (ccg,). (Entered: 11/16/2005) 11/09/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Hearing. No. of Notices: 10. Service Date 11/09/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 11/10/2005) 11/07/2005 Hearing Scheduled. On Objection To Notice Of Abandonment (related document: Notice of Information, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman, 125 Objection to Notice of Information filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) Hearing scheduled for 11/21/2005 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (dlr,) (Entered: 11/07/2005) 10/21/2005 Partial Objection to (related document: Notice of Information, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) Modified on 10/25/2005 (ccg,). (Entered: 10/25/2005) 10/08/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Notice of Sale, Auction or Abandonment. No. of Notices: 53. Service Date 10/08/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 10/09/2005) 10/04/2005 Notice of Information for Abandonment re: Debtors' claims against Jack Litman, Esq. and Litman Ashe Gioilla, LLP based upon the Trustee's evaluation of the merits of said claims and his belief that a recovery is not likely filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. Hearing date if Objection filed: 11/07/05 at 9:00am. Objections due by 10/24/2005. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 10/04/2005) 10/04/2005 Document re: Correspondence to Judge Winfield in Opposition to Debtors' Motion to Vacate the April 14, 2004 Order Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 10/04/2005) 09/26/2005 Document re: Letter by Mac Truong requesting an investigation filed by Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 09/28/2005) 09/19/2005 Supplemental Reply in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 09/21/2005) 09/19/2005 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: On The Papers. (related document: Motion re: To Remove Chapter 7 Trustee Steven P. Kartzman, Esq. Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong) (nds) (Entered: 09/21/2005) 09/15/2005 Reply Certification in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 09/19/2005) 09/14/2005 Second Supplemental in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Maryse Mac Truong. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) (Entered: 09/19/2005) 09/14/2005 Certificate of Service (related document: Opposition, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 09/14/2005) 09/13/2005 Certification in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: To Remove Chapter 7 Trustee Steven P. Kartzman, Esq. filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Brief In Opposition to Debtors' Motion to Remove Trustee) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 09/13/2005) 09/12/2005 Brief in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: To Remove Chapter 7 Trustee Steven P. Kartzman, Esq. filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 09/12/2005) 08/26/2005 Document re: Letter by Maryse Mac Truong. (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) (ccg,) (Entered: 10/04/2005) 08/26/2005 Supplemental Certification in in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 08/29/2005) 08/18/2005 Hearing Rescheduled from 9/12/05 to 9/19/2005 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark (related document: Motion To Remove Chapter 7 Trustee Steven P. Kartzman, Esq. filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). RESCHEDULED BY THE COURT TO COMPLY WITH JUDGE WINFIELD'S AVAILABILITY. (lh) (Entered: 08/18/2005) 08/17/2005 Motion re: To Remove Chapter 7 Trustee Steven P. Kartzman, Esq. Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Hearing scheduled for 9/12/2005 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification In Support of Motion# 2 Certificate of Service) (dlr,) Modified on 8/18/2005: INCORRECT HEARING — COURT WILL RESCHEDULE HEARING DATE. (lh) (Entered: 08/17/2005) 12/31/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 12/31/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/01/2005) 12/31/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 7. Service Date 12/31/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/01/2005) 12/28/2004 Order Denying Motion re: Brought under F.R.C. Cv P. 57. (Related Doc # 106). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee and US Trustee. Signed on 12/28/2004. (smz,) (Entered: 12/29/2004) 12/27/2004 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order. (related document: Motion re: To Declare Under F.R.C. Cv.P. 57 that This Court's May 21, 2004 Order Granting Trustee Kartzman's Application To Employ Hellring Lindenman Goldstein Siegal LLp As His Special Counsel Is Null And Void Due To The Court's Total Lack Of Jurisdiction To Grant Such Application Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong) (nds) (Entered: 12/30/2004) 12/20/2004 Reply certification in further support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) Modified on 1/5/2005 (ccg.). (Entered: 01/05/2005) 12/16/2004 Letter Memorandum in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: To Declare Under F.R.C. Cv.P. 57 that This Court's May 21, 2004 Order Granting Trustee Kartzman's Application To Employ Hellring Lindenman Goldstein Siegal LLp As His Special Counsel Is Null And Void Due To The Court's Total filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 12/16/2004) 11/29/2004 Motion re: To Declare Under F.R.C. Cv.P. 57 that This Court's May 21, 2004 Order Granting Trustee Kartzman's Application To Employ Hellring Lindenman Goldstein Siegal LLp As His Special Counsel Is Null And Void Due To The Court's Total Lack Of Jurisdiction To Grant Such Application Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Hearing scheduled for 12/27/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification In Support Of Motion# 2 Certificate of Service) (dlr,) (Entered: 11/30/2004) 10/25/2004 Adversary Case (03-2907) Closed (ed,) (Entered: 10/25/2004) 08/27/2004 Correspondence re: Letter of Mac Truong and Maryse Mac Truong considering merits of objections made by debtors various proofs of claim Hearing 9/13/04 at 9:00 AM filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 09/07/2004) 08/27/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 08/27/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/28/2004) 08/27/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 08/27/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/28/2004) 08/27/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 08/27/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/28/2004) 08/26/2004 Supplemental Response to (related document: Response, filed by Creditor Bank One Delaware, NA tka First USA) filed by Heather M. Oakley on behalf of Bank One Delaware, NA fka First USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Oakley, Heather) (Entered: 08/26/2004) 08/24/2004 Order Denying Objection To The Claim Of Broadwhite Associates (related document: Document filed by Debtor Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee and US Trustee. Signed on 8/24/2004. (dlr,) (Entered: 08/25/2004) 08/24/2004 Order Denying Objection To The Claim Of The Lawyer's Fund (related document: Objection filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee and US Trustee. Signed on 8/24/2004. (dlr,) (Entered: 08/25/2004) 08/24/2004 Order Denying Objection To Claim Of Government Of Vietnam (related document: Notice of Hearing — (Generic)). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee and US Trustee. Signed on 8/24/2004. (dlr,) (Entered: 08/25/2004) 08/23/2004 Hearing Rescheduled from 8/23/04 to 9/13/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark (related document: Objection filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). (lh) (Entered: 08/26/2004) 08/20/2004 Response to (related document: Document filed by Debtor Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 08/20/2004) 08/18/2004 Response to (related document: Objection filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Michael Knight Warning: party not known. (ccg,) (Entered: 08/26/2004) 08/17/2004 Certificate of Service (related document: Notice of Hearing — (Generic)) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 08/19/2004) 08/17/2004 Certificate of Service (related document: Notice of Hearing — (Generic)) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 08/19/2004) 08/17/2004 Certificate of Service (related document: Notice of Hearing — (Generic)) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 08/19/2004) 08/17/2004 Certificate of Service (related document: Notice of Hearing — (Generic)) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 08/19/2004) 08/17/2004 Certificate of Service (related document: Notice of Hearing — (Generic)) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 08/19/2004) 08/12/2004 Certificate of Service (related document: Notice of Hearing — (Generic)) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 08/24/2004) 08/12/2004 Certificate of Service (related document: Notice of Hearing — (Generic)) filed by. (ccg,) (Entered: 08/17/2004) 08/12/2004 Certificate of Service (related document: Notice of Hearing — (Generic)) filed by. (ccg,) (Entered: 08/17/2004) 08/12/2004 Certificate of Service (related document: Notice of Hearing — (Generic)) filed by. (ccg,) (Entered: 08/17/2004) 08/12/2004 Certificate of Service (related document: Notice of Hearing — (Generic)) filed by. (ccg,) (Entered: 08/17/2004) 08/07/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 3. Service Date 08/07/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/08/2004) 08/07/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 08/07/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/08/2004) 08/07/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 08/07/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/08/2004) 08/07/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 08/07/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/08/2004) 08/07/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 08/07/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/08/2004) 08/07/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 08/07/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/08/2004) 08/07/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 08/07/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/08/2004) 08/07/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 08/07/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/08/2004) 08/07/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 08/07/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/08/2004) 08/07/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 08/07/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/08/2004) 08/05/2004 Notice of Hearing filed: (related document: Objection to Claim of Bank One, Delaware, filed by Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). Hearing scheduled for 9/13/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (lh) (Entered: 08/05/2004) 08/05/2004 Notice of Hearing filed: (related document: Objection to Claim of Broadwhite Associates, filed by Debtor Mac Truong). Hearing scheduled for 8/23/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (lh) (Entered: 08/05/2004) 08/05/2004 Notice of Hearing filed: (related document: Objection to Claim of Steven A. Hershkowitz, PA, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). Hearing scheduled for 9/13/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (lh) (Entered: 08/05/2004) 08/05/2004 Notice of Hearing filed: (related document: Objection to Claim of New York State Department of Taxation, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). Hearing scheduled for 9/13/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D. Newark. (lh) (Entered: 08/05/2004) 08/05/2004 Notice of Hearing filed: (related document: Objection to Claim of MBNA America, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). Hearing scheduled for 8/23/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (lh) (Entered: 08/05/2004) 08/05/2004 Notice of Hearing filed: (related document: Objection to Claim o fthe Lawler's Fundfiled by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). Hearing scheduled for 8/23/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (lh) (Entered: 08/05/2004) 08/05/2004 Notice of Hearing filed: (related document: Objection to Claim of Law Office of Daniel J. Yablonsky, LLC, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). Hearing scheduled for 9/13/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (lh) (Entered: 08/05/2004) 08/05/2004 Notice of Hearing filed: (related document: Objection to Claim of J. Santalone, Esquire, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). Hearing scheduled for 9/13/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (lh) (Entered: 08/05/2004) 08/05/2004 Notice of Hearing filed: (related document: Objection to Claim of Government of Vietnam, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). Hearing scheduled for 8/23/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (lh) (Entered: 08/05/2004) 08/05/2004 Notice of Hearing filed: (related document: Objection filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). Hearing scheduled for 9/13/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (lh,) (Entered: 08/05/2004) 08/05/2004 Hearing Scheduled for 9/13/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark (related document: Objection to Claim of Hershkowitz, P.C., filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). (lh) (Entered: 08/05/2004) 08/05/2004 Hearing Scheduled for 9/13/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark (related document: Objection to Claim of New York State Department of Taxation, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). (lh) (Entered: 08/05/2004) 08/05/2004 Hearing Scheduled for 9/13/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark (related document: Objection filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). (lh) (Entered: 08/05/2004) 08/02/2004 Document re: Attorney certification for Government of Vietnam filed by Richard Zweig. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) (Entered: 08/04/2004) 08/02/2004 Objection of claims by Hershkowitz filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) Modified on 8/5/2004 (cls,). (Entered: 08/04/2004) 08/02/2004 Objection of claims of New York State Separtment of Taxation filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 08/04/2004) 08/02/2004 Objection to claims of J. Santalone filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 08/04/2004) 07/29/2004 Hearing Scheduled for 9/13/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark (related document: Objection filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). HEARING SCHEDULED BY THE COURT — OBJECTION TO CLAIM(S) REQUIRES THE SCHEDULING OF A HEARING. (lh) (Entered: 07/29/2004) 07/28/2004 Last day to file claims Deadline Terminated, Reason: date expired (dmd,) (Entered: 07/28/2004) 07/27/2004 Hearing Scheduled for 9/13/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark (related document: Objection to Claim, filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). (lh) (Entered: 07/27/2004) 07/26/2004 Objection of claims by Ambrosio filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 07/28/2004) 07/26/2004 Response to (related document: Objection filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Heather M. Oakley on behalf of MBNA America Bank, N.A. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H) (Oakley, Heather) (Entered: 07/26/2004) 07/26/2004 Response to (related document: Document filed by Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Heather M. Oakley on behalf of Bank One Delaware, NA fka First USA. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H) (Oakley, Heather) (Entered: 07/26/2004) 07/23/2004 Objection to Claim Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong (gwi,) (Entered: 07/26/2004) 07/16/2004 Document re: Notice of Rejection of Claim by Broadwhite Associates filed by Mac Truong. Hearing scheduled for 8/23/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (gwi,) (Entered: 07/19/2004) 07/14/2004 Hearing Scheduled for 8/23/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark (related document: Objection to Claim of MBNA America filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). (lh) (Entered: 07/14/2004) 07/14/2004 Hearing Scheduled for 8/23/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark (related document: Objection to Claim of the Lawyer's Fund filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). (lh) (Entered: 07/14/2004) 07/14/2004 Hearing Scheduled for 8/23/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark (related document: Objection to Claim of Government of Vietnam filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). (lh) (Entered: 07/14/2004) 07/09/2004 Objection of claims by Vietnam. filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 07/13/2004) 07/02/2004 Objection of claim of MBNA America filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 07/13/2004) 07/02/2004 Debtors' Objection of claims. filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 07/13/2004) 06/30/2004 Document re: Notice of rejection of proof of claim filed by Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 07/01/2004) 06/29/2004 Adversary Case (03-2788) Closed (ed,) (Entered: 06/29/2004) 06/21/2004 Adversary Case (04-1238) Closed (ed,) (Entered: 06/21/2004) 06/01/2004 Correspondence re: Letter reply to trustee's letter dated 5/28/04 filed by Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 06/02/2004) 05/23/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 05/23/2004. (Related Doc.# 49) (Admin.) (Entered: 05/24/2004) 05/21/2004 Order Granting Application to Employ Hellring Lindeman Goldstein Siegal LLP. as Special Counsel (Related Doc # 46) The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney and Movant. Signed on 5/21/2004. (dlr,) (Entered: 05/21/2004) 05/19/2004 Document re: Letter brief response to 4/27, May 10 and May 12 letters from one of the debtors filed by. (ccg,) (Entered: 05/24/2004) 04/23/2004 BNC Certificate of Service re: Notice of Assets. No. of Notices: 38. Service Date 04/23/2004. (Related Doc # 47) (Admin.) (Entered: 04/24/2004) 04/21/2004 Notice of Assets Request for Notice to Creditors filed by Steven P. Kartzman. Proofs of Claim due by 7/20/2004. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 04/21/2004) 04/13/2004 Application to Employ Hellring Lindeman Goldstein Siegal LLP as Special Counsel Filed by Richard Honig on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. Objection deadline is 4/20/2004. (Honig, Richard) (Entered: 04/13/2004) 02/24/2004 Receipt of Fee Amount $ 50.00, ($45.00 for Certification, $5.00 for Copywork) Receipt Number 298288 . . . Fee received from Dept. Disc. Comm. Certified Copies. (amg,) (Entered: 02/24/2004) 02/20/2004 BNC Certificate of Mailing — Order of Discharge and BNC Certificate of Service —. No. of Notices: 37. Service Date 02/20/2004. (Related Doc # 44) (Admin.) (Entered: 02/21/2004) 02/18/2004 Order Discharging Debtor. Signed on 2/18/2004. (dmd,) (Entered: 02/18/2004) 02/05/2004 Complaint by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong against Jack Litman; Litman, Asche Gioilla, LLP; Steven P. Kartzman. Nature of Suit: 454: to Recover Money or Property. Receipt Number 297664, Fee Amount $ 150. (lr,) (Entered: 02/06/2004) 01/22/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 4. Service Date 01/22/2004. (Related Doc # 41) (Admin.) (Entered: 01/23/2004) 01/20/2004 Amended Order Extending Time To File A Complaint Objecting To The Debtors' Discharge (related document: Motion to Extend Time to Object to Discharge. filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney and Movant. Signed on 1/20/2004. (dlr,) (Entered: 01/20/2004) 01/09/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 4. Service Date 01/09/2004. (Related Doc # 38) (Admin.) (Entered: 01/10/2004) 01/06/2004 Order Granting Motion to Extend Time to Object to Discharge (Related Doc # 36) The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney and Movant. Signed on 1/6/2004. (dlr,) (Entered: 01/07/2004) 01/05/2004 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Granted/Order Signed. (related document: Motion to Extend Time to Object to Discharge. Filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman) (nds) (Entered: 01/13/2004) 12/23/2003 Certification of Debtor in Opposition to (related document: Motion to Extend Time to Object to Discharge. filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong. (smz,) (Entered: 01/13/2004) 12/18/2003 Correspondence re: Responding to Mr. David M. Levy's letter of 12/12/03 RE: Debtor's Problem with the DDC. filed by Mac Truong. (msr,) (Entered: 01/05/2004) 12/15/2003 Motion to Extend Time to Object to Discharge. Filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. Hearing scheduled for 1/5/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Steven P. Kartzman, Esq.# 2 Proposed Order # 3 Certificate of Service) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 12/15/2003) 12/12/2003 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 4. Service Date 12/12/2003. (Related Doc # 34) (Admin.) (Entered: 12/13/2003) 12/09/2003 Consent Order re: Resolving Trustee's Objection To Debtor's Exemption Claims, (related document: Certificate of Consent filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman). Filed by Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman, LLC on behalf of Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman, LLC. The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney And Movant. Signed on 12/9/2003. (dlr,) (Entered: 12/10/2003) 12/08/2003 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Consent Order To Be Submitted. (related document: Objection to Debtor's Claim of Exemptions filed by Steven P. Kartzman) (nds) (Entered: 12/10/2003) 12/08/2003 Complaint by Broadwhite Associates against Mac Truong; Maryse Mac Truong. Nature of Suit: Determine the Dischargeability of Debt. Fee Amount S 150. (Attachments: # 1 Summons for Defendant Mac Truong# 2 Summons for Defendant Maryse Mac Truong) (Baker, Brian) (Entered: 12/08/2003) 12/05/2003 Certificate of Consent (related document: Objection to Debtor's Claim of Exemptions filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman). Filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 12/05/2003) 11/14/2003 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 3. Service Date 11/14/2003. (Related Doc # 29) (Admin.) (Entered: 11/15/2003) 11/10/2003 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Trustee Authorized To Employ Attorney/Order Signed. (related document: Notice of Hearing filed (related document: Opposition filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong, 15 Application to Employ, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) (nds) (Entered: 11/19/2003) 11/10/2003 Order Granting Application to Employ Mellinger, Sander Kartzman as Attorney For Trustee (Related Doc # 15) The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney and Movant. Signed on 11/10/2003. (dlr,) (Entered: 11/12/2003) 11/10/2003 Application to Employ Kinzel Co. as Accountant Filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. Objection deadline is 11/17/2003. (Attachments: # Affidavit of No Adverse Interest# 2 Exhibit # 3 Proposed Order Authorizing Retention of Accountant for Estate) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 11/10/2003) 11/07/2003 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 3. Service Date 11/07/2003. (Related Doc # 26) (Admin.) (Entered: 11/08/2003) 11/06/2003 Complaint by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong against DDC For the First Judicial Department. Nature of Suit: Order of Removal. (smz,) (Entered: 11/19/2003) 11/05/2003 Notice of Hearing filed (related document: Objection to Debtor's Claim of Exemptions filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman). Hearing scheduled for 12/8/2003 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (lh) (Entered: 11/05/2003) 11/03/2003 Objection to Debtor's Claim of Exemptions filed by Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 11/03/2003) 10/24/2003 Deadline for Missing Documents Satisfied. THIS IS A CHAPTER 7; NOTICE OF MISSING DOCUMENTS (CHAPTER 13 PLAN) WITHDRAWN. (lr,) (Entered: 10/24/2003) 10/21/2003 Document re: Certification in reply to Steven McGoldricks Letter filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 10/27/2003) 10/21/2003 Certificate of Service re: the DDC, Dept. of Disciplinary Committee, Supreme Court of New York filed by Mac Truong. (lr,) (Entered: 10/27/2003) 10/18/2003 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 3. Service Date 10/18/2003. (Related Doc # 19) (Admin.) (Entered: 10/19/2003) 10/17/2003 Document re: Certification of Court for the Southern District of New York and Court of Appeals filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 11/05/2003) 10/17/2003 Document re: Certication of Southern District of New York Court of Appeals filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) ENTER IN ERROR NO PDF ATTACHED Modified on 11/5/2003 (ccg,). (Entered: 10/27/2003) 10/16/2003 Notice of Hearing filed (related document: Opposition filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong, 15 Application to Employ, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman). Hearing scheduled for 11/10/2003 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (lh) (Entered: 10/16/2003) 10/15/2003 Flags Set-Reset (smz,) (Entered: 10/15/2003) 10/10/2003 Certificate of Service (related document: Opposition filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (smz,) (Entered: 10/15/2003) 10/10/2003 Certificate of Service (related document: Order Respecting Amendment to Schedule (s), Order Respecting Amendment to Schedule(s)) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (smz,) (Entered: 10/15/2003) 10/10/2003 Certification in Opposition to (related document: Application to Employ Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman, LLC as Attorneys filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (smz,) (Entered: 10/15/2003) 10/07/2003 Application to Employ Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman, LLC as Attorneys Filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. Objection deadline is 10/14/2003. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Steven P. Kartzman# 2 Proposed Order) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 10/07/2003) 10/05/2003 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 10/05/2003. (Related Doc # 13) (Admin.) (Entered: 10/06/2003) 10/03/2003 Order Respecting Amendment to Schedule(s) F (related document: Amended Schedules (Fee) filed by Debtor Mac Truong, Joint Debtor Maryse Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney. Signed on 10/3/2003. (lr,) (Entered: 10/03/2003) 10/02/2003 Receipt of Amendment Fee — Fee Amount $ 20.00, Receipt Number 290914. (related document: Voluntary Petition (Chapter 7)). Fee received from Mac Truong (lr,) (Entered: 10/02/2003) 09/30/2003 Amended Schedule(s): F filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (lr,) (Entered: 10/03/2003) 09/26/2003 Correction Notice in Electronic Filing (related document: Notice of Missing Documents). Type of Error: ENTER IN ERROR, filed by THE COURT. CORRECTION MADE BY THE COURT, CCG (Entered: 09/26/2003) 09/24/2003 Complaint by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac-Truong against Elaine Nguyen. Nature of Suit: 454: Recover Money or Property. (lr,) (Entered: 09/24/2003) 09/19/2003 BNC Certificate of Service. No. of Notices: 5. Service Date 09/19/2003. (Related Doc # 4) (Admin.) (Entered: 09/20/2003) 09/18/2003 BNC Certificate of Service — Meeting of Creditors. No. of Notices: 37. Service Date 09/18/2003. (Related Doc # 3) (Admin.) (Entered: 09/19/2003) 09/17/2003 Complaint by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong against Elaine Nguyen. Nature of Suit: 454: Recover Money or Property. (lr,) (Entered: 09/23/2003) 09/17/2003 Complaint by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong against Sang Kim Nguyen. Nature of Suit: 454: Recover Money or Property. (lr,) (Entered: 09/23/2003) 09/17/2003 Complaint by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong against Hung Thi Nguyen. Nature of Suit: 454: Recover Money or Property. (lr,) (Entered: 09/23/2003) 09/17/2003 Complaint by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac-Truong against Truong Dinh Tran. Nature of Suit: 454: Recover Money or Property. (lr,) (Entered: 09/23/2003) 09/16/2003 Appointment of Trustee. Meeting of Creditors 341(a) meeting to be held on 10/16/2003 at 10:00 AM at Suite 1401, One Newark Center. Last day to oppose discharge or dischargeability is 12/15/2003. (gfc,) (Entered: 09/16/2003) 09/15/2003 Notice of Missing Documents. (related document: Voluntary Petition (Chapter 7)). Missing Documents: 13 Plan Incomplete Filings due by 9/30/2003. (gfc,) ENTER IN ERROR NOTICE WITHDRAWN Modified on 9/26/2003 (ccg,). (Entered: 09/17/2003) 09/15/2003 Receipt of Case Filing Fee — Fee Amount $ 200.00, Receipt Number 289497. (mcp) (Entered: 09/15/2003) 09/15/2003 Chapter 7 Voluntary Petition Filed by Mac Truong. (mcp) Modified on 9/16/2003 (gfc,). Additional attachment(s) added on 9/16/2003 (gfc,). (Entered: 09/15/2003) AnsFiled, JGMTU.S. Bankruptcy CourtDistrict of New Jersey (Newark)Adversary Proceeding #: 03-02681-NLWAssigned to:Date Filed:Related BK Case:Related BK Title:Related BK Chapter:Demand:Nature[s] of Suit:PlaintiffBroadwhite Associates, A New York LimitedElliot ScherPartnershipTERMINATED: 08/27/2004LEAD ATTORNEYSteven P. KartzmanTrustee for PlaintiffBruce S. EttermanLEAD ATTORNEYDefendantMac Truong, Dr.Mac Truong, Dr.akaMac TruongMaryse Mac TruongMaryse Mac TruongakaMaryse Mac TruongSylvanine DeCrouySylvanine DeCrouyTERMINATED: 10/11/2006Hugh Mac TruongHugh Mac TruongTrusteeSteven P. KartzmanBruce S. EttermanFiling Date # Docket Text339338289337292336292335334334292333289332214212331214212329330308327326328287325324292323322321289318293317316314293313308320289319293312311310299297309308297306299307297304303299302297301299300299299122982972972430528929629529228929429229329229229228912902892912782882872872782892812862852842832822702812662662802792782782722662772762762662275274264273265272271266270266315269266227026626626726626824926524926424921421226321226221226121426025922325825725725525325124925225024924924624824724624424522024323724221424122024021023923823719723623423522025622325420119722321020223221421223121421223023421221222922822822322718720222622522522421023322320820219720920120122222122321820221721022022192062162122132122111872092012082022072061622152142122142122122031992002102052032022011831911832001982041911831971961991951841771771931721721941841771921911831901831881771891691871861851621541561551541691841771851771841773182178183181176180179178172177175170176169163156162154156155154174173172171165170162169167154166162165168130163156162154150146164154160132161130157151159158158130155156155154215313215215014615114315014614911014811114714614514414313913714214014114014013913713913713813713712130 703713513413413313654133117132 7037 1301311301301291281271151141261171141251241231221211201191151141141171141181171141171141161151141151141141121093510810711110511010510675113105801041031008410293101869877969599809380949092918477908989888497738773838673858080837384828081808080757973737875 60547774737373697271767069696668666766666665645956635962596159566059565857564646555452533651504646493647464846462454444364240403139361434138313731123635343332312302922262223272826222524242323222220182118181414191814181417161514141231361211116610696676866524331 Judge Novalyn L. Winfield 10/22/03 03-40283 Mac Truong and Maryse Mac Truong 7 459 Application For Removal --------------------------- represented by Benenson Scher TERMINATED: 08/27/2004 159 Millburn Ave. Millburn, NJ 07041 (973) 467-9750 , represented by Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman, LLC Hellring Linderman 01 Gibraltar Drive, Suite 2F One Gateway Center Morris Plains, NJ 07950 8th Floor 973-267-0220 Newark, NJ 07102 (973) 621-9020 Fax: (973) 621-7406 Email: bsetterman@hlgslaw.com V. --------------------------- represented by 627 Demott Avenue PRO SE Teaneck, NJ 07666 represented by 627 Demott Avenue Teaneck, NJ 07666 PRO SE (212) 566-6000 SSN: xxx-xx-2551 represented by 627 Demott Avenue Teaneck, NJ 07666 PRO SE represented by 627 Demontt Avenue PRO SE Teaneck, NJ 07666 --------------------------- represented by Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman, LLC 101 Gibraltar Drive, Suite 2F Morris Plains, NJ 07950 (See above for address) (973) 267-0220 02/07/2008 Copy of Order from Circuit Court Re: Appeal on Appellate Case Number: 06-3980. Appeal dismissed. Signed on 2/7/2008 (ekp,) (CV#06-3179) (Entered: 02/07/2008) 12/06/2007 Notice of Appeal (Doc. #212) Terminated, Reason: Motion for Leave to Appeal denied by District Court Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 6/22/07. (ekp,) (CV#06-3286) (Entered: 12/06/2007) 07/31/2007 Notice of Docketing Record on Appeal to Court of Appeals. Civil Action Number:06- 5511. USCA#07-3239. (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). Judge Garrett E. Brown assigned. (ekp,) (Entered: 08/01/2007) 07/31/2007 Notice of Docketing Record on Appeal to Court of Appeals. Civil Action Number: 06- 5511. USCA #07-3238. (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy). Judge Garrett E. Brown assigned. (ekp,) (Entered: 08/01/2007) 07/17/2007 Document re: Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal filed in DC from Order of 7/5/07 Denying Motion for Order Scheduling a Hearing. (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, 289 Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) (ekp,) (CV#06- 5511) (Entered: 07/26/2007) 07/17/2007 Document re: Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal filed in DC from Order of 7/5/07 Affirming Bankruptcy Court's Decision. (related document: Order District Court re: Appeal,) (ekp,) (CV#06-5511) (Entered: 07/26/2007) 07/05/2007 Certified Copy of Order By District Court Judge Garrett E. Brown Affirming Bankruptcy Court Order (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, 289 Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong. Signed on 7/5/2007 (ekp,) (CV#06-5511) (Entered: 07/10/2007) 07/05/2007 Certified Copy of Opinion By District Court Judge Garrett E. Brown Affirming Bankruptcy Court Order (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong. Signed on 7/5/2007 (ekp,) (CV#06-5511) (Entered: 07/10/2007) 06/22/2007 Certified Copy of Order by District Judge Garrett E. Brown Denying Motion for Leave to Appeal (related document: Motion for Leave to Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong. Signed on 6/22/2007 (ekp,) (CV#06-3286) (Entered: 06/26/2007) 06/22/2007 Certified Copy of Memorandum Opinion Denying Motion For Leave to Appeal (related document: Motion for Leave to Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). (Related Doc # 214). Signed on 6/22/2007. Appellant Designation due by 7/2/2007. (ekp,) (CV#06-3286) (Entered: 06/26/2007) 04/04/2007 Document re: Letter of To-Viet-Dao, LLP. (ccg,) (Entered: 05/24/2007) 03/29/2007 Document re: Letter by Mac Truong. (related document: Summary Judgment,, Default Judgment,) (ccg,) (Entered: 05/24/2007) 01/29/2007 Receipt of Exemplification Fee Amount $ 18.00, Receipt Number 501494 . . . Fee received from Mellinger, Sander Kartzman (ccg,) (Entered: 01/31/2007) 01/20/2007 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 6. Service Date 01/20/2007. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/21/2007) 01/18/2007 Third Supplemental Order Granting Summary Judgment On The First, Second, And Fourth Counts Of The Amended Complaint; Striking All Of The Defendants' Affirmative Defenses; And Granting Final Judgment By Default Against Sylvaine Decrouy (Related Doc # 325). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant. Signed on 1/18/2007. (cu,) (Entered: 01/18/2007) 01/17/2007 Certified Copy of Order By District Court Judge Stanley R. Chesler Dismissing Appeal (related document: Certification of Failure to File Designation of Record, 278 Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr. Signed on 1/17/2007 (ekp,) (CV#06-4978) (Entered: 01/25/2007) 01/17/2007 Application re: for Entry of a Third Supplemental Order Granting Summary Judgment Filed by Steven P. Kartzman. Objection deadline is 1/24/2007. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 01/17/2007) 01/12/2007 Certified Copy of Memorandum Opinion and Order By District Court Judge Peter G. Sheridan Denying Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy. Signed on 1/12/2007 (ekp,) (CV#06-5511) (Entered: 01/16/2007) 01/11/2007 Document re: Correspondence to Judge Winfield dated January 9, 2007 filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 01/11/2007) 12/28/2006 Correspondence by Judge Winfield re: Notice of Motion for an Order Declaring Null and Void or Vacating the Court's 12/7/06 Orders Amending this Court's 10/11/06 Order Granting Summary Judgment and Directing Discharged Debtors. (smz,) (Entered: 12/29/2006) 12/27/2006 Receipt of Fee Amount S 18.00, Receipt Number 501211 . . . Fee received from Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman (dmc,) (Entered: 01/04/2007) 12/26/2006 THIRD Amended Notice of Appeal — Civil Action Number: 06-5511 (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong, 292 Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy). (Entered: 12/28/2006) 12/26/2006 Addendum to Record on Appeal (related document: Appeal Designation, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) Filed by Sylvanine DeCrouy, Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (djv,) (Entered: 12/27/2006) (Entered: 12/27/2006) 12/22/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 6. Service Date 12/22/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 12/23/2006) 12/21/2006 Document re: Correspondence to Judge Winfield filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 12/21/2006) 12/20/2006 Amended Appellee's Designation of Record (related document: Appeal Designation, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) Filed by Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/19/2006 Second Supplemental Order Granting Summary Judgment On The First, Second, and Fourth Counts Of The Amended Complaint; Striking All Of The Defendants' Affirmative Defenses; And Granting Final Judgment By Default Against Sylvaine Decrouy (related document: Summary Judgment,, Default Judgment,) The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendants (hardcopy). Signed on 12/19/2006 (cu,) (Entered: 12/20/2006) 12/12/2006 SECOND Amended Notice of Appeal — Civil Action Number: 06-5511 (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong, 292 Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy). (Entered: 12/27/2006) 12/12/2006 Addendum to Record on Appeal (related document: Appeal Designation, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) Filed by Sylvanine DeCrouy, Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (djv,) (Entered: 12/27/2006) 12/11/2006 Document re: Supplemental Affidavit filed by Mac Truong, Dr. (lc,) (Entered: 12/15/2006) 12/09/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 6. Service Date 12/09/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 12/10/2006) 12/09/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 6. Service Date 12/09/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 12/10/2006) 12/07/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Granted (related document: Motion to Compel Debtors to Provide Access to Real Property and for Related Relief filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) (dlr,) (Entered: 12/15/2006) 12/07/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Granted (related document: Motion re: for Entry of an Amended Summary Judgment on the First, Second and Fourth Counts of the Amended Complaint; Striking all of the Defendants' Affirmative Defenses; and Granting Final Judgment by Default Against Sylvaine DeCrouy filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) (dlr,) (Entered: 12/15/2006) 12/07/2006 Order Directing Debtor's To Provide Access To Real Property And Granting Related Relief. (Related Doc # 299). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendants. Signed on 12/7/2006. (cu,) (Entered: 12/07/2006) 12/07/2006 Supplemental Order Granting Summary Judgment On The First, Second, And Fourth Counts of The Amended Complaint; Striking All of The Defendants' Affirmative Defenses; And Granting Final Judgment By Default Against Sylvaine Decrouy. (related document: Motion re: for Entry of an Amended Summary Judgment on the First, Second and Fourth Counts of the Amended Complaint; Striking all of the Defendants' Affirmative Defenses; and Granting Final Judgment by Default Against Sylvaine DeCrouy filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiffs Attorney, Defendants. Signed on 12/7/2006 (cu,) (Entered: 12/07/2006) 12/05/2006 Document re: Letter Brief in Reply to Opposition (related document: Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, 297 Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 12/05/2006) 12/01/2006 Letter opposition to plaintiff Kartzman's motion in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: for Entry of an Amended Summary Judgment on the First, Second and Fourth Counts of the Amended Complaint; Striking all of the Defendants' Affirmative Defenses; and Granting Final Judgment by Default Against Sylvaine DeCrouy filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by To-Viet-Dao, LLC. (ccg,) (Entered: 12/07/2006) 11/30/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 6. Service Date 11/30/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 12/01/2006) 11/29/2006 Certificate of Service (related document: Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, 298 Application to Shorten Time, filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, 300 Application to Shorten Time, filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, 301 Order on Application to Shorten Time,, 297 Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, 302 Order on Application to Shorten Time,,) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 11/29/2006) 11/28/2006 Order Granting Application to Shorten Time (related document: Motion re: for Entry of an Amended Summary Judgment on the First, Second and Fourth Counts of the Amended Complaint; Striking all of the Defendants' Affirmative Defenses; and Granting Final Judgment by Default Against Sylvaine DeCrouy filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 11/28/2006. Hearing scheduled for 12/7/2006 at 10:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (dlr.) (Entered: 11/28/2006) 11/28/2006 Order Granting Application to Shorten Time (related document: Motion to Compel Debtors to Provide Access to Real Property and for Related Relief filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 11/28/2006. Hearing scheduled for 12/7/2006 at 10:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (dlr,) (Entered: 11/28/2006) 11/22/2006 Application to Shorten Time (related document: Motion to Compel Debtors to Provide Access to Real Property and for Related Relief filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) Filed by Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 11/22/2006) 11/22/2006 Motion to Compel Debtors to Provide Access to Real Property and for Related Relief Filed by Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # Certification # Exhibit A thru D# 3 Proposed Order) (Brief. Adam) (Entered: 11/22/2006) 11/22/2006 Application to Shorten Time (related document: Motion re: for Entry of an Amended Summary Judgment on the First, Second and Fourth Counts of the Amended Complaint; Striking all of the Defendants' Affirmative Defenses; and Granting Final Judgment by Default Against Sylvaine DeCrouy filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) Filed by Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 11/22/2006) 11/22/2006 Motion re: for Entry of an Amended Summary Judgment on the First, Second and Fourth Counts of the Amended Complaint; Striking all of the Defendants' Affirmative Defenses; and Granting Final Judgment by Default Against Sylvaine DeCrouy Filed by Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Letter Brief# Certification # 3 Exhibit A thru I# Proposed Order) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 11/22/2006) 11/16/2006 Notice of Docketing Record on Appeal to District Court. Civil Action Number:06- 5511. (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong, 292 Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy). Judge Peter G. Sheridan assigned. (ekp,) (Entered: 12/05/2006) 11/16/2006 Certified Copy of Order by USCA Granting Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed on 11/16/2006 (ekp,) (CV#06-3179) (USCA#06-3980) (Entered: 11/21/2006) 11/16/2006 Transmittal of Record on Appeal to U.S. District Court (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong, 293 Appeal Designation, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) (djv,) (Entered: 11/16/2006) 11/03/2006 Appelle's Designation of (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, 293 Appeal Designation, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) Text Modified on 11/8/2006 (djv,). (Entered: 11/03/2006) 11/01/2006 Designation Due Deadline Terminated, Reason: Amended Appeal was filed w/Designation (djv,) (Entered: 11/01/2006) 11/01/2006 Designation Due Deadline Terminated, Reason: Appeal has been dismissed (djv,) (Entered: 11/01/2006) 10/20/2006 Designation of Record On Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy), Statement of Issues on Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy) Filed by Sylvanine DeCrouy, Hugh Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Transmission of Record due 11/6/2006. (djv,) Text Modified on 11/16/2006 (djv,). (Entered: 10/24/2006) 10/20/2006 AMENDED Notice of Appeal to District Court. (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). Receipt Number UNPAID, Fee Amount $ 255. Filed by Sylvanine DeCrouy, Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. Appellant Designation due by 11/3/2006. (Attachments: # Application to proceed in Forma Pauperis) (djv,) (Entered: 10/24/2006) 10/19/2006 Clerk's Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) (djv,) (Entered: 10/19/2006) 10/18/2006 Notice of Docketing Record on Appeal to District Court. Civil Action Number: 06- 4978. (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.). Judge Stanley R. Chesler assigned. (ekp,) (Entered: 10/24/2006) 10/18/2006 Transmittal Memo to District Court Re: Certification of Failure to File Designation. (related document: Certification of Failure to File Designation of Record,) (djv,) (Entered: 10/18/2006) 10/18/2006 Certification of Failure to File Designation of Record, (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) (djv,) (Entered: 10/18/2006) 10/17/2006 Notice of Appeal to District Court. (related document: Order on Motion For Summary Judgment,). Receipt Number UNPAID, Fee Amount $ 255. Filed by Sylvanine DeCrouy, Hugh Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. Appellant Designation due by 10/27/2006. (djv,) (Entered: 10/18/2006) 10/16/2006 Receipt of Fee Amount $ 18.00, Exemplification Receipt Number 500718 . . . Fee received from Mellinger Sanders (ccg,) (Entered: 10/17/2006) 10/15/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 5. Service Date 10/15/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 10/16/2006) 10/15/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 6. Service Date 10/15/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 10/16/2006) 10/13/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 7. Service Date 10/13/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 10/16/2006) 10/12/2006 Order Denying With Prejudice Debtors' Oral Motion For Stay Of Order Granting Summary Judgment On The First, Second, And Fourth Counts Of The Amended Complaint; Striking All Of The Defendants' Affirmative Defenses; And Granting Final Judgment By Default Against Sylvaine Decrouy. The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendants, and Sylvanine DeCrouy (hardcopy). Signed on 10/12/2006 (cu,) (Entered: 10/13/2006) 10/12/2006 Order Denying With Prejudice Debtors' Cross Motion To Deny Trustee Kartzman's Motion For Summary Judgement And To Dismiss Amended Complaint or To Compel Plaintiff Kartzman To Submit To Oral Deposition Before Trial And For Other And Further Relief (related document: Response, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiffs Attorney, and Defendant. Signed on 10/12/2006. (cu,) (Entered: 10/13/2006) 10/11/2006 Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy terminated, Reason: Final Judgment By Default Against Defendant Granted on 10/11/2006. (cu,) (Entered: 10/11/2006) 10/11/2006 Order Granting Summary Judgment On The First, Second, And Fourth Counts Of The Amended Complaint; Striking All Of The Defendants' Affirmative Defenses; And Granting Final Judgment By Default Against Sylvaine Decrouy (Related Doc # ). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant. Signed on 10/11/2006. (cu,) (Entered: 10/11/2006) 10/10/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Summary Judgment Granted/Order Signed (related document: Motion For Summary Judgment RE: as to the First, Second and Fourth Counts of the Amended Complaint; Striking Defendants' Affirmative Defenses in favor of Steven P. Kartzman, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff and against Mac Truong, Maryse Mac-Truong, Sylvaine DeCrouy and Hugh Mac-Truong. Filed by Steven P. Kartzman) (nds,) (Entered: 10/11/2006) 10/06/2006 Document re: Letter objecting to purported Notice of Appeal 278 (Docket Sheet #278) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Etterman, Bruce) Modified on 10/12/2006 (sg,). (Entered: 10/06/2006) 10/06/2006 Clerk's Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) (djv,) (Entered: 10/06/2006) 10/04/2006 Notice of Appeal (related document: Order (Generic), Order (Generic)). Receipt Number UNPAID, Fee Amount $ 255. Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. Appellant Designation due by 10/16/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Application to proceed in Forma Pauperis) (djv,) (Entered: 10/04/2006) 10/03/2006 Hearing Rescheduled from 10/10/2006. (related document: Motion For Summary Judgment RE: as to the First, Second and Fourth Counts of the Amended Complaint; Striking Defendants' Affirmative Defenses in favor of Steven P. Kartzman, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff and against Mac Truong, Maryse Mac-Truong, Sy filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) Hearing scheduled for 10/10/2006 at 03:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (dlr,) (Entered: 10/03/2006) 10/03/2006 Certificate of Service (related document: Document, filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 10/03/2006) 10/03/2006 Document re: Reply and Opposition to Defendants' Response (Document No. 270) to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (related document: Motion for Summary Judgment,, filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # Exhibit A) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 10/03/2006) 09/28/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 6. Service Date 09/28/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 09/29/2006) 09/26/2006 Certified Copy of Order By District Court Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise Dismissing Appeal. (related document: Certification of Failure to File Designation of Record,, 249 Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Hugh Mac Truong. Signed on 9/26/2006 (ekp,) (CV#06- 3464) (Entered: 09/26/2006) 09/26/2006 Certified Copy of Opinion By District Court Judge Dickenson R. Debevoise Dismissing Appeal. (related document: Transmittal of Record on Appeal (USDC), 249 Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). Signed on 9/26/2006 (ekp,) (CV#06- 3464) (Entered: 09/26/2006) 09/25/2006 Order Denying With Prejudice Debtors' Motion To Vacate Amended Order Dated Setpember 21, 2005, Denying Defendants' Motion For A Collateral Estoppel Order, Dismissing Amended Complaint And/Or For Declaratory Judgment. (Related Doc # 130). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant. Signed on 9/25/2006. (cu,) (Entered: 09/26/2006) 09/14/2006 Document re: Correspondence to Judge Winfield confirming adjournment (related document: Motion for Summary Judgment,, filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, Response, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 09/14/2006) 09/14/2006 Hearing Rescheduled from 09/18/2006. (related document: Motion For Summary Judgment RE: as to the First, Second and Fourth Counts of the Amended Complaint; Striking Defendants' Affirmative Defenses in favor of Steven P. Kartzman, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff and against Mac Truong, Maryse Mac-Truong, Sy filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, 270 Response, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong. Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) Hearing scheduled for 10/10/2006 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (dlr,) (Entered: 09/14/2006) 09/12/2006 Correspondence re: Letter reviewing your request to file your Cross-Motion filed by. (rh,) (Entered: 12/20/2006) 09/12/2006 Document re: Brief in reply to the letter response of the Debtors and Hugh Mac Truong, by letter dated August 5, 2006 in response to (related document: Motion for Summary Judgment,, filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Certification# Exhibit A and B# 3 Certificate of Service) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 09/12/2006) 09/11/2006 Response to (related document: Motion For Summary Judgment RE: as to the First, Second and Fourth Counts of the Amended Complaint; Striking Defendants' Affirmative Defenses in favor of Steven P. Kartzman, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff and against Mac Truong, Maryse Mac-Truong, Sy filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Hugh Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit) (ccg,) (Entered: 09/13/2006) 08/16/2006 Hearing Rescheduled from 09/05/2006. (related document: Motion For Summary Judgment RE: as to the First, Second and Fourth Counts of the Amended Complaint; Striking Defendants' Affirmative Defenses in favor of Steven P. Kartzman, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff and against Mac Truong, Maryse Mac-Truong, Sy filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) Hearing scheduled for 9/18/2006 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (dlr,) (Entered: 08/16/2006) 07/31/2006 Request to Enter Default Judgment Against Sylvaine DeCrouy filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Exhibit A thru E# 3 Exhibit F thru K# 4 Exhibit L thru R# 5 Brief # 6 Rule 56.1# (7) Proposed Order # 8 Certificate of Service) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 07/31/2006) 07/31/2006 Motion For Summary Judgment RE: as to the First, Second and Fourth Counts of the Amended Complaint; Striking Defendants' Affirmative Defenses in favor of Steven P. Kartzman, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff and against Mac Truong, Maryse Mac-Truong, Sylvaine DeCrouy and Hugh Mac-Truong. Filed by Steven P. Kartzman.Hearing scheduled for 9/5/2006 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Exhibit A thru E# 3 Exhibit F thru K# 4 Exhibit L thru R# 5 Brief # 6 Rule 56.1# 7 Proposed Order # 8 Certificate of Service) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 07/31/2006) 07/28/2006 Notice of Docketing Record on Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). Civil Action Number: 06-3464. Judge Dickenson R. Debevoise assigned. (ekp,) (Entered: 08/01/2006) 07/28/2006 Transmittal of Record on Appeal to U.S. District Court (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) (djv,) (Entered: 07/28/2006) 07/28/2006 Certification of Failure to File Designation of Record, (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) (djv,) (Entered: 07/28/2006) 07/18/2006 Remark — Notice of Docketing of Motion for Leave to Appeal. CV#06-3286. Judge Peter G. Sheridan assigned. (related document: Motion for Leave to Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). (ekp,) (Entered: 07/25/2006) 07/18/2006 Notice of Docketing Record on Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). Civil Action Number: 06-3286. Judge Peter G. Sheridan assigned. (ekp,) (Entered: 07/25/2006) 07/18/2006 Transmittal of Record on Appeal to U.S. District Court (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong, 234 Appeal Designation,, Statement of Issues on Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) (djv,) (Entered: 07/18/2006) 07/18/2006 Transmittal Memo to District Court Re: Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal. (related document: Motion for Leave to Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) (djv,) (Entered: 07/18/2006) 06/20/2006 Document re: Letter Regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 06/20/2006) 06/20/2006 Transcript of Hearing Held On: 05/08/2006 Re: (related document: Motion to Quash, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) (JJ Court Transcribers,) (Entered: 06/20/2006) 06/16/2006 Document re: Letter by the court denying request for a hearing on motion dismissing amended complaint. (related document: Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong) (ccg,) (Entered: 06/16/2006) 06/15/2006 Motion to Dismiss Amended complaint Filed by Maryse Mac Truong. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Certification) (ccg,) Modified on 6/16/2006 (ccg,). (Entered: 06/16/2006) 06/06/2006 Document re: Letter by the court for leave to file a Reply certification in further support of motion to quash dated 5/6/06 is denied. (ccg,) (Entered: 06/09/2006) 06/02/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 7. Service Date 06/02/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 06/03/2006) 05/30/2006 Document re: Letter Memorandum in opposition to Notice of Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 05/30/2006) 05/26/2006 Order Denying with Prejudice Motion re: Enjoining Plaintiff from using any documentary evidence for litigation purposes. (Related Doc # 220). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 5/26/2006. (wdh,) (Entered: 05/31/2006) 05/26/2006 Clerk's Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) (msr) (Entered: 05/26/2006) 05/25/2006 Notice of Appeal (related document: Order (Generic), 245 Order (Generic)). Receipt Number Unpaid, Fee Amount $ 255. Filed by Hugh Mac Truong, Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. Appellant Designation due by 6/5/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Application In Forma Pauperis) (msr,) (Entered: 05/26/2006) 05/21/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 7. Service Date 05/21/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 05/22/2006) 05/20/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 6. Service Date 05/20/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 05/21/2006) 05/18/2006 Order Imposing Filing Injunction Against Hugh Mac Truong. (Related Doc # 201). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendants. Signed on 5/18/2006. (cu.) (Entered: 05/19/2006) 05/17/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 4. Service Date 05/17/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 05/18/2006) 05/16/2006 Order Denying Motion or Application For The Entry of an Order to Vacate Court Order Date March 20, 2006 (Related Doc # 202). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiffs Attorney, Defendant. Signed on 5/16/2006. (cu,) (Entered: 05/18/2006) 05/15/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order (related document: Motion re: For an order enjoining plaintiff from using any documentary evidence for litigation purpose Filed by Hugh Mac Truong) (nds) (Entered: 05/18/2006) 05/15/2006 Document re: Letter Answer to trustee Kartzman's Letter brief. (related document: Opposition, filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) (ccg,) (Entered: 05/17/2006) 05/15/2006 Reply Certification in support of (related document: Motion for Leave to Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Dr. (ccg,) (Entered: 05/17/2006) 05/15/2006 Reply Certification in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Hugh Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) Modified on 5/17/2006 (ccg,). (Entered: 05/17/2006) 05/15/2006 Order Denying Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (related document: Document filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant. Signed on 5/15/2006 (dlr,) (Entered: 05/15/2006) 05/14/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 7. Service Date 05/14/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 05/15/2006) 05/12/2006 Order Granting In Part The Debtors' Motion To Vacate March 14, 2006 Order Compelling Debtors To Retain Counsel And Denying Request To Reassign Case. (Related Doc # 197). The following parties were served: Plaintiff. Plaintiffs Attorney, Defendant. Signed on 5/12/2006. (cu,) (Entered: 05/12/2006) 05/11/2006 Letter Brief in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: To Vacate This Court's March 14, 2006 Order Compelling Defendants To Retain Counsel Or Striking Defendants' Answer And For An Order Reassigning This Case To Another Judge And For Other Appropriate Relief filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Certificate of Service) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 05/11/2006) 05/11/2006 Document re: letter objecting to Notice of Appeal (related document: Appeal Designation,, Statement of Issues on Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong, 212 Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 05/11/2006) 05/09/2006 Certification in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: For an order enjoining plaintiff from using any documentary evidence for litigation purpose filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 05/09/2006) 05/08/2006 Reply certification in further support of (related document: Motion to Quash, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 06/09/2006) 05/08/2006 Document re: Request for leave to file motion pursuant to this Court's March 20, 2006 injunction order limiting filing. filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 06/09/2006) 05/08/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Granted/Order Signed (related document: Motion re: For Imposition of Filing Injunction Against Hugh Mac-Truong Filed by Steven P. Kartzman) (nds,) (Entered: 05/12/2006) 05/08/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Granted In Part; Denied In Part/Court Order (related document: Motion re: To Vacate This Court's March 14, 2006 Order Compelling Defendants To Retain Counsel Or Striking Defendants' Answer And For An Order Reassigning This Case To Another Judge And For Other Appropriate Relief Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong.) (nds,) (Entered: 05/12/2006) 05/08/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order (related document: Motion to Quash plaintiff's subpoena in a case under the Bankruptcy code and disqualify Mellinger an Hellring attorneys for debtors Thuongs'estate in chapter 7 case 03-40283 and its related adversary case Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong.) (nds,) (Entered: 05/10/2006) 05/08/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: In Forma Pauperis Application Denied/Court Order (related document: Document re: Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Supporitng Documentation And Order filed by Mac Truong, Dr) (nds,) (Entered: 05/10/2006) 05/08/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order (related document: Motion re: To Vacate This Court's March 20, 2006 Order Imposing Filing Injunction Against Mac-Truong and Maryse Mac Truong Filed by Hugh Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong) (nds,) (Entered: 05/10/2006) 05/08/2006 Brief in Opposition to (related document: Motion for Leave to Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 05/08/2006) 05/05/2006 Brief in Opposition to (related document: Motion for Leave to Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Bruce S. Etterman with Exhibits A through F attached# 2 Exhibits G through I of Declaration of Bruce S. Etterman# 3 Declaration of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 05/05/2006) 05/05/2006 Document re: Letter filed in U.S. District Court on April 20, 2006 requesting adjournment of response date to file opposition to the motion for leave to appeal filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 05/05/2006) 05/02/2006 Designation of Record On Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong), Statement of Issues on Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) Filed by Sylvanine DeCrouy, Hugh Mac Truong, Mac Truong, Dr. Transmission of Record due 5/17/2006. (lc,) (Entered: 05/09/2006) 05/02/2006 Certificate of Service (related document: Document, filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, 227 Document filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 05/02/2006) 05/02/2006 Document re: Letter Objecting to Consideration of Debtors' Motion (related document: Motion to Quash, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong. Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 05/02/2006) 05/02/2006 Document re: Request for entry of Order Striking Debtor's Answer (related document: Order on Cross Motion,) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 05/02/2006) 05/01/2006 Hearing Rescheduled from 5/1/06. (related document: Motion re: To Vacate This Court's March 20, 2006 Order Imposing Filing Injunction Against Mac-Truong and Maryse Mac Truong Filed by Hugh Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong) Hearing scheduled for 5/8/2006 at 11:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (nds) (Entered: 05/03/2006) 05/01/2006 Certificate of Service (related document: Document filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 05/01/2006) 05/01/2006 Document re: correspondence to Diana Reaves filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 05/01/2006) 05/01/2006 Objection to (related document: Document filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 05/01/2006) 04/28/2006 Supplemental certification in further in support of (related document: Motion to Quash, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/8/2006 (ccg,). (Entered: 05/08/2006) 04/24/2006 Hearing Rescheduled from 4/24/06. (related document: Correspondence to Judge Winfield in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: To Vacate This Court's March 20, 2006 Order Imposing Filing Injunction Against Mac-Truong and Maryse Mac Truong filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong, 197 Motion re: To Vacate This Court's March 14, 2006 Order Compelling Defendants To Retain Counsel Or Striking Defendants' Answer And For An Order Reassigning This Case To Another Judge And For Other Appropriate Relief filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman) Hearing scheduled for 5/8/2006 at 11:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (nds,) (Entered: 04/26/2006) 04/24/2006 Hearing Rescheduled from 4/24/06. (related document: Motion re: To Vacate This Court's March 14, 2006 Order Compelling Defendants To Retain Counsel Or Striking Defendants' Answer And For An Order Reassigning This Case To Another Judge And For Other Appropriate Relief Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong) Hearing scheduled for 5/8/2006 at 11:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D. Newark. (nds,) (Entered: 04/26/2006) 04/24/2006 Hearing Rescheduled from 4/24/06. (related document: Opposition to (related document: Motion re: For Imposition of Filing Injunction Against Hugh Mac- Truong filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Hugh Mac Truong) Hearing scheduled for 5/8/2006 at 11:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (nds,) (Entered: 04/26/2006) 04/24/2006 Hearing Rescheduled from 4/24/06. (related document: Motion re: For Imposition of Filing Injunction Against Hugh Mac-Truong Filed by Steven P. Kartzman) Hearing scheduled for 5/8/2006 at 11:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D. Newark. (nds,) (Entered: 04/26/2006) 04/20/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 7. Service Date 04/20/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 04/21/2006) 04/20/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 7. Service Date 04/20/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 04/21/2006) 04/18/2006 Motion to Quash plaintiff's subpoena in a case under the Bankruptcy code and disqualify Mellinger an Hellring attorneys for debtors Thuongs'estate in chapter 7 case 03-40283 and its related adversary case Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 5/22/2006 at 10:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) Modified on 4/21/2006 (ccg,). (Entered: 04/21/2006) 04/18/2006 Notice of Hearing for: (related document: Order limiting Hugh Mac Truong's reliance on facts and witnesses and requiring proof of written authorization for third parties to execute pleading on defendant's behalf. The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney.Hearing scheduled for 5/8/2006 at 11:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (ccg,) Modified on 4/19/2006 (ccg,). Modified on 5/11/2006 (dlr,). (Entered: 04/18/2006) 04/18/2006 Notice of Hearing for: (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant. Defendant's Attorney.Hearing scheduled for 5/8/2006 at 11:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (ccg,) Modified on 5/11/2006 (dlr,). (Entered: 04/18/2006) 04/17/2006 Motion re: For an order enjoining plaintiff from using any documentary evidence for litigation purpose Filed by Hugh Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 5/15/2006 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # Certificate of Service) (ccg,) (Entered: 04/19/2006) 04/17/2006 Certification in compliance with court's 4/6/06 order requiring proof of Written authorization in support of (related document: Order (Generic), Order (Generic), Order (Generic)) filed by Hugh Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 04/18/2006) 04/17/2006 Clerk's Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) (1c,) (Entered: 04/17/2006) 04/17/2006 Clerk's Notice of Filing Fee Due. (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) (lc,) (Entered: 04/17/2006) 04/17/2006 Document re: Certification in furtherance of (related document: Order on Cross Motion,) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 04/17/2006) 04/12/2006 Opposition to (related document: Motion re: For Imposition of Filing Injunction Against Hugh Mac-Truong filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Hugh Mac Truong. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) Modified on 4/13/2006 (ccg,). (Entered: 04/13/2006) 04/12/2006 Correspondence to Judge Winfield in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: To Vacate This Court's March 20, 2006 Order Imposing Filing Injunction Against Mac-Truong and Maryse Mac Truong filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong, 197 Motion re: To Vacate This Court's March 14, 2006 Order Compelling Defendants To Retain Counsel Or Striking Defendants' Answer And For An Order Reassigning This Case To Another Judge And For Other Appropriate Relief filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 04/12/2006) 04/09/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 5. Service Date 04/09/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 04/10/2006) 04/06/2006 Order Limiting Hugh Mac-Truong's Reliance On Facts And Witnesses And Requiring Proof Of Written Authorization For Third Parties To Execute Pleadings On Defendant's Behalf (related document: Cross Motion re: for an Order Limiting Hugh Mac-Truong to Facts and Witnesses Identified in Answers to Interrogatories Only and Requesting Written Proof by Defendant that Maryse Mac-Truong is Authorized to Execute Pleadings on Defendant's Behalf (r filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) . . The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiffs Attorney, Defendant. Signed on 4/6/2006 (cu,) (Entered: 04/07/2006) 04/03/2006 Certificate of Service (related document: Motion for Leave to Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong, Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Dr. . (lc,) (Entered: 04/17/2006) 04/03/2006 Motion for Leave to Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) Filed by Sylvanine DeCrouy, Hugh Mac Truong, Mac Truong, Dr. . Responses due by 4/24/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Exhibit 1 — 15# 3 Certificate of Service) (1c,) (Entered: 04/17/2006) 04/03/2006 Notice of Appeal (related document: Order (Generic), 196 Order (Generic), Order (Generic), Order on Motion For Sanctions,, Order on Cross Motion,). Receipt Number Unpaid, Fee Amount $ 255. Filed by Sylvanine DeCrouy, Hugh Mac Truong, Mac Truong, Dr. . Appellant Designation due by 4/13/2006. (lc,) (Entered: 04/17/2006) 04/03/2006 Document re: Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Supporitng Documentation And Order filed by Mac Truong, Dr.. (dlr,) (Entered: 04/13/2006) 03/29/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 4. Service Date 03/29/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 03/30/2006) 03/29/2006 Order Denying With Prejudice Hugh Mac Troung's Motion For Order Directing Substitute Plaintiff To Answer Interrogatories By A Date Certain And To Produce Summons With Notice With Proof Of Service Or Dismissing Amended Complaint And/Or Granting Other Appropriate Relief (Related Doc # 183). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant Signed on 3/29/2006. (dlr,) (Entered: 03/29/2006) 03/28/2006 Motion re: To Vacate This Court's March 20, 2006 Order Imposing Filing Injunction Against Mac-Truong and Maryse Mac Truong Filed by Hugh Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 5/1/2006 at 10:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification In Support# 2 Exhibit # 3 Certificate of Service) (cu,) (Entered: 03/29/2006) 03/28/2006 Motion re: For Imposition of Filing Injunction Against Hugh Mac-Truong Filed by Steven P. Kartzman.Hearing scheduled for 4/24/2006 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Letter Brief# 2 Certification # 3 Proposed Order # (4) Certificate of Service) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 03/28/2006) 03/27/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order (related document: Motion re: For order directing substitute plaintiff to answer interrogatories by date certain and produce summons with notice with proof of ser. or dismissing amended complaint and/or granting other appropriate relief Filed by Hugh Mac Truong) (nds,) (Entered: 03/29/2006) 03/27/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Granted/Order Signed (related document: Cross Motion re: for an Order Declaring that Hugh Mac Truong is Subject to the Personal Jurisdiction, and that No Additional Process is Required (related document: 183 Motion re: For order directing substitute plaintiff to answer interrogatories by date certain and produce summons with notice with proof of ser. or dismissing amended complaint and/or granting other appropriate relief filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) Filed by Steven P. Kartzman) (nds,) (Entered: 03/28/2006) 03/27/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order (related document: Motion re: For order directing substitute plaintiff to answer interrogatories by date certain and produce summons with notice with proof of ser. or dismissing amended complaint and/or granting other appropriate relief Filed by Hugh Mac Truong) (nds,) (Entered: 03/28/2006) 03/27/2006 Order Declaring That Hugh Mac Truong Is Subject To The Jurisdiction Of The Court; That The Adversary Proceeding Is A Core Proceeding Over Which The Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction; And That No Additional Process Is Required (Related Doc # 191). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiffs Attorney, Defendant. Signed on 3/27/2006. (cu,) (Entered: 03/27/2006) 03/26/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 4. Service Date 03/26/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 03/27/2006) 03/24/2006 Certification in Opposition to (related document: Cross Motion re: for an Order Declaring that Hugh Mac Truong is Subject to the Personal Jurisdiction, and that No Additional Process is Required (related document: Motion re: For order directing substitute plaintiff to answer interrogatories by dat filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Hugh Mac Truong. (smz,) (Entered: 03/29/2006) 03/24/2006 Motion re: To Vacate This Court's March 14, 2006 Order Compelling Defendants To Retain Counsel Or Striking Defendants' Answer And For An Order Reassigning This Case To Another Judge And For Other Appropriate Relief Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 4/24/2006 at 10:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification In Support With Certificate of Service) (cu,) (Entered: 03/24/2006) 03/24/2006 Order Denying Motion re: for an order vacating entry of default against Sylvaine Decrouy and granting other appropriate. (Related Doc # 177). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant. Signed on 3/24/2006. (dlr,) (Entered: 03/24/2006) 03/23/2006 Order Denying With Prejudice Hugh Mac-Truong's Motions (I) Denying Trustee's Application To Strike Hugh Mac-Truong's Answer To Amended Complaint And Dismissing Amended Complaint; (II) For Sanctions Against Trustee (Related Doc # 154); (Related Doc # 155); And (Related Doc # 156). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, And Defendant. Signed on 3/23/2006. (cu.) (Entered: 03/27/2006) 03/23/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 03/23/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 03/24/2006) 03/20/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Moot By Reason Of Denial Of Motion To Vacate Default (related document: Cross Motion re: for an Order for Conditions Upon Vacation of Default (related document: Motion re: for an order vacating entry of default against Sylvaine Decrouy and granting other appropriate relief filed by Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy) Filed by Steven P. Kartzman) (nds,) (Entered: 03/22/2006) 03/20/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order (related document: Motion re: for an order vacating entry of default against Sylvaine Decrouy and granting other appropriate relief Filed by Sylvanine DeCrouy) (nds,) (Entered: 03/22/2006) 03/20/2006 Order Imposing Filing Injunction Against Mac Truong And Maryse Mac-Truong. (Related Doc # ). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney. Defendant. Signed on 3/20/2006. (cu,) (Entered: 03/21/2006) 03/20/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Granted/Order Signed (related document: Motion re: for an Order Imposing Filing Injunction Against Mac Truong and Maryse Macc-Truong Filed by Steven P. Kartzman) (nds,) (Entered: 03/21/2006) 03/17/2006 Certification in Opposition to (related document: Cross Motion re: for an Order for Conditions Upon Vacation of Default (related document: Motion re: for an order vacating entry of default against Sylvaine Decrouy and granting other appropriate relief filed by Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy) filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Sylvanine DeCrouy. (ccg,) (Entered: 03/22/2006) 03/17/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 03/17/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 03/18/2006) 03/17/2006 Cross Motion re: for an Order Declaring that Hugh Mac Truong is Subject to the Personal Jurisdiction, and that No Additional Process is Required (related document: Motion re: For order directing substitute plaintiff to answer interrogatories by date certain and produce summons with notice with proof of ser. or dismissing amended complaint and/or granting other appropriate relief filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) Filed by Steven P. Kartzman.Hearing scheduled for 3/27/2006 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Letter Brief# 2 Certification # 3 Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 03/17/2006) 03/17/2006 Letter Brief in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: For order directing substitute plaintiff to answer interrogatories by date certain and produce summons with notice with proof of ser. or dismissing amended complaint and/or granting other appropriate relief filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Exhibit A thru D) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 03/17/2006) 03/15/2006 Certification in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: for an order vacating entry of default against Sylvaine Decrouy and granting other appropriate relief filed by Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A thru C) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 03/15/2006) 03/15/2006 Correction Notice in Electronic Filing. Type of Error: WRONG EVENT CODE AND LINK, filed by STEVEN KARTZMAN. Please correct and refile with the court. (dmd,) (Entered: 03/15/2006) 03/14/2006 Supplemental in support of (related document: Motion to Quash, filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) (Entered: 03/16/2006) 03/14/2006 Order (I) Compelling Defendants To Participate In Discovery, Or In The Alternative, Striking Defendants' Answer; (II) Compelling Defendants To Retain Counsel (Related Doc # 132). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant. Signed on 3/14/2006. (cu,) Modified Link on 3/22/2006 (sg,). (Entered: 03/15/2006) 03/14/2006 Certification of Steven P. Kartzman in support of (related document: Opposition, filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A thru C) (Brief, Adam) (ENTERED IN ERROR- WRONG EVENT CODE) Modified on 3/15/2006 (dmd,). (Entered: 03/14/2006) 03/13/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Granted/Order Signed (related document: Cross Motion re: for an Order Limiting Hugh Mac-Truong to Facts and Witnesses Identified in Answers to Interrogatories Only and Requesting Written Proof by Defendant that Maryse Mac-Truong is Authorized to Execute Pleadings on Defendant's Behalf (related document: Motion re: for order denying trustee Kartzman's application to strike Hugh mac Truong's answer to amended complaint filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) Filed by Steven P. Kartzman) (nds) (Entered: 03/16/2006) 03/13/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order (related document: Motion For Sanctions Against Steven Kartzman Filed by Hugh Mac Truong) (nds) (Entered: 03/16/2006) 03/13/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order (related document: Motion re: Certification in support of motion for an order sanctioning Kartzman Filed by Hugh Mac Truong) (nds,) (Entered: 03/16/2006) 03/13/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Order Denying Motion To Dismiss Complaint (related document: Motion re: for order denying trustee Kartzman's application to strike Hugh mac Truong's answer to amended complaint Filed by Hugh Mac Truong) (nds) (Entered: 03/16/2006) 03/13/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied Without Prejudice/Court Order (related document: Motion to Quash Debtors' Answer and Enter Default Filed by Steven P. Kartzman) (nds) (Entered: 03/15/2006) 03/13/2006 Hearing Rescheduled from 3/20/06 at 9:00 am. (related document: Cross Motion re: for an Order for Conditions Upon Vacation of Default (related document: Motion re: for an order vacating entry of default against Sylvaine Decrouy and granting other appropriate relief filed by Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy) filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) Hearing scheduled for 3/20/2006 at 10:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (cu,) (Entered: 03/14/2006) 03/13/2006 Letter Brief to Judge Winfield in Lieu of a more formal brief in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: for an order vacating entry of default against Sylvaine Decrouy and granting other appropriate relief filed by Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 03/13/2006) 03/13/2006 Cross Motion re: for an Order for Conditions Upon Vacation of Default (related document: Motion re: for an order vacating entry of default against Sylvaine Decrouy and granting other appropriate relief filed by Defendant Sylvanine DeCrouy) Filed by Steven P. Kartzman.Hearing scheduled for 3/20/2006 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Letter Brief in Support of Cross-Motion# 2 Certification # Exhibit A thru C# 4 Proposed Order # 5 Certificate of Service) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 03/13/2006) 03/09/2006 Document re: letter brief in lieu of a formal brief in Reply to (related document: Opposition filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 03/09/2006) 03/08/2006 Motion re: For order directing substitute plaintiff to answer interrogatories by date certain and produce summons with notice with proof of ser. or dismissing amended complaint and/or granting other appropriate relief Filed by Hugh Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 3/27/2006 at 10:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) (Entered: 03/09/2006) 03/07/2006 Document re: Letter Brief to Judge Winfield in reply to (related document: Opposition, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 03/07/2006) 03/04/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 4. Service Date 03/04/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 03/05/2006) 03/01/2006 Order Denying With Prejudice Hugh Mac-Truong's Motion To Reconsider Order Dated December 28, 2005. (Related Doc # 150). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiffs Attorney, Defendant. Signed on 3/1/2006. (cu,) (Entered: 03/02/2006) 02/27/2006 Certification in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: for an Order Imposing Filing Injunction Against Mac Truong and Maryse Macc-Truong filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 02/28/2006) 02/27/2006 Motion re: for an order vacating entry of default against Sylvaine Decrouy and granting other appropriate relief Filed by Sylvanine DeCrouy.Hearing scheduled for 3/20/2006 at 10:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service # 2 Certification # 3 Defendants Mac Truongg's certification in support of motion) (ccg,) (Entered: 02/28/2006) 02/23/2006 Response to (related document: Opposition, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 02/23/2006) 02/22/2006 Opposition certification to trustee Kartzman's motion to strike debtors' answer and enter default in Opposition to (related document: Motion to Quash Debtors' Answer and Enter Default filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong, Dr. (ccg,) (Entered: 02/24/2006) 02/21/2006 Hearing Rescheduled from 2/21/06. (related document: Letter Brief to Judge Winfield in Opposition to (related document: Motion For Sanctions Against Steven Kartzman filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman) Hearing scheduled for 3/13/2006 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (nds) (Entered: 02/24/2006) 02/21/2006 Hearing Rescheduled from 2/21/06. (related document: Cross Motion re: for an Order Limiting Hugh Mac-Truong to Facts and Witnesses Identified in Answers to Interrogatories Only and Requesting Written Proof by Defendant that Maryse Mac- Truong is Authorized to Execute Pleadings on Defendant's Behalf (related document: Motion re: for order denying trustee Kartzman's application to strike Hugh mac Truong's answer to amended complaint filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) Filed by Steven P. Kartzman) Hearing scheduled for 3/13/2006 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (nds,) (Entered: 02/24/2006) 02/21/2006 Hearing Rescheduled from 2/21/06. (related document: Motion For Sanctions Against Steven Kartzman Filed by Hugh Mac Truong) Hearing scheduled for 3/13/2006 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (nds,) (Entered: 02/24/2006) 02/21/2006 Hearing Rescheduled from 2/21/06. (related document: Motion re: Certification in support of motion for an order sanctioning Kartzman Filed by Hugh Mac Truong) Hearing scheduled for 3/13/2006 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (nds,) (Entered: 02/24/2006) 02/21/2006 Hearing Rescheduled from 2/21/06. (related document: Motion re: for order denying trustee Kartzman's application to strike Hugh mac Truong's answer to amended complaint Filed by Hugh Mac Truong) Hearing scheduled for 3/13/2006 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (nds,) (Entered: 02/24/2006) 02/19/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 02/19/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 02/20/2006) 02/19/2006 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 02/19/2006. (Admin.) (Entered: 02/20/2006) 02/17/2006 Motion re: for an Order Imposing Filing Injunction Against Mac Truong and Maryse Macc-Truong Filed by Steven P. Kartzman.Hearing scheduled for 3/20/2006 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Letter Brief# 2 Certification # 3 Exhibit A thru C# 4 Proposed Order # 5 Certificate of Service) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 02/17/2006) 02/16/2006 Entry of Default against Sylvaine Decrouy (related document: Request to Enter Default, filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiffs Attorney, Defendant. (dlr,) (Entered: 02/17/2006) 02/15/2006 Certification in Opposition to (related document: Cross Motion re: for an Order Limiting Hugh Mac-Truong to Facts and Witnesses Identified in Answers to Interrogatories Only and Requesting Written Proof by Defendant that Maryse Mac- Truong is Authorized to Execute Pleadings on Defendant's Behalf (r filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Hugh Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 02/16/2006) 02/14/2006 Motion to Quash Debtors' Answer and Enter Default Filed by Steven P. Kartzman.Hearing scheduled for 3/13/2006 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Letter Brief in Support of Motion# 2 Certification # 3 Exhibit A thru C# 4 Proposed Order # 5 Certification) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 02/14/2006) 02/09/2006 Certification in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: for order denying trustee Kartzman's application to strike Hugh mac Truong's answer to amended complaint filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A thru C# 2 Certificate of Service) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 02/09/2006) 02/09/2006 Exhibits A thru C in support of (related document: Cross Motion,, filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 02/09/2006) 02/09/2006 Request to Enter Default Against Sylvaine Decrouy filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit # 2 Exhibit A# 3 Entry of Default) (Brief, Adam) Modified TEXT on 2/10/2006 (msr). (Entered: 02/09/2006) 02/08/2006 Supplemental Certification in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (msr,) (Entered: 02/10/2006) 02/07/2006 Letter Brief to Judge Winfield in Opposition to (related document: Motion For Sanctions Against Steven Kartzman filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 02/07/2006) 02/07/2006 Cross Motion re: for an Order Limiting Hugh Mac-Truong to Facts and Witnesses Identified in Answers to Interrogatories Only and Requesting Written Proof by Defendant that Maryse Mac-Truong is Authorized to Execute Pleadings on Defendant's Behalf (related document: Motion re: for order denying trustee Kartzman's application to strike Hugh mac Truong's answer to amended complaint filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) Filed by Steven P. Kartzman.Hearing scheduled for 2/21/2006 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Proposed Order # 3 Certificate of Service) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 02/07/2006) 02/06/2006 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order (related document: Motion to Reconsider (related document: Order on Cross Motion) Filed by Hugh Mac Truong) (nds,) (Entered: 02/08/2006) 02/06/2006 Reply certification in further in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Maryse Mac Truong. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) (Entered: 02/07/2006) 02/02/2006 Document re: Letter Brief to Judge Winfield in Lieu of a more Formal Brief in further Support of Plaintiff's Pending Cross-Motion for an Order Striking Defendant's Answer, etc., argued on November 7, 2005 (related document: Cross Motion,,, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Certification of Steven P. Kartzman, Trustee# 2 Exhibit A thru G# 3 Certificate of Service) (Brief. Adam) (Entered: 02/02/2006) 02/01/2006 Supplemental reply certification dated January 30, 2006 in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 02/03/2006) 01/31/2006 Document re: Supplemental Certification of Adam G. Brief, Esq., Pursuant to December 16, 2005 Order regarding Failure of Defendant Hugh Mac-Truong to Answer Interrogatories by Date Certain (related document: Document, filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A thru C) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 01/31/2006) 01/27/2006 Certificate of Service (related document: Support filed by Defendants Mac Truong, Dr. and Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Hugh Mac Truong and Mac Truong, Dr. (rah) (Entered: 02/02/2006) 01/27/2006 Supplemental Reply Certification in Further in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Hugh Mac Truong, Mac Truong, Dr. (rah,) (Entered: 02/02/2006) 01/27/2006 Correction Notice in Electronic Filing (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). Type of Error: WRONG EVENT CODE, filed by THE COURT. CORRECTION MADE BY THE COURT (Entered: 01/27/2006) 01/23/2006 Motion For Sanctions Against Steven Kartzman Filed by Hugh Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 2/21/2006 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification) (ccg,) (Entered: 01/27/2006) 01/23/2006 Motion re: Certification in support of motion for an order sanctioning Kartzman Filed by Hugh Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 2/21/2006 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification) (ccg,) ENTERED IN ERROR WRONG EVENT CODE Modified on 1/27/2006 (ccg,). (Entered: 01/25/2006) 01/23/2006 Motion re: for order denying trustee Kartzman's application to strike Hugh mac Truong's answer to amended complaint Filed by Hugh Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 2/21/2006 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # Answers to plaintiff's initial interrogatories# 3 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) (Entered: 01/25/2006) 01/20/2006 Letter Brief to Judge Winfield in support of (related document: Cross Motion,, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A thru D) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 01/20/2006) 01/20/2006 Letter Brief to Judge Winfield in lieu of a more formal Brief in Opposition to (related document: Motion to Reconsider (related document: Order on Cross Motion) filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 01/20/2006) 01/17/2006 Document re: Certification of Adam G. Brief, Esq., Pursuant to December 16, 2005 Order Regarding Failure of Defendant Hugh Mac-Truong to Answer Interrogatories by Date Certain (related document: Order on Motion to Compel,, Order on Motion To Quash,, Order on Cross Motion,) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order # 2 Certificate of Service) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 01/17/2006) 01/09/2006 Motion to Reconsider (related document: Order on Cross Motion) Filed by Hugh Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 2/6/2006 at 10:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification in Support# 2 Certificate of Service) (djv,) (Entered: 01/12/2006) 01/09/2006 Certified Copy of Order by District Judge William Bassler Denying Motion for Reconsideration (related document: Document,). Signed on 1/9/2006 (ekp,) (CV#05-2847) (Entered: 01/10/2006) 01/09/2006 Certified Copy of Order by District Judge William Bassler Denying Motion for Reconsideration (related document: Document. Signed on 1/9/2006 (ekp,) (CV#05-2595) (Entered: 01/10/2006) 12/30/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 4. Service Date 12/30/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 12/31/2005) 12/28/2005 Order Denying Cross Motion (Related Doc # 139). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiffs Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney And The Trustee. Signed on 12/28/2005. (jev,) Modified Link on 2/8/2006 (sg,). (Entered: 12/28/2005) 12/18/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 12/18/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 12/19/2005) 12/18/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 12/18/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 12/19/2005) 12/16/2005 Order Compelling Hugh Mac-Troung to Answer Interrogatories by a Date Certain (Related Doc # 137). Mooting Cross Motion (Related Doc # 139). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 12/16/2005. (zlh,) (Entered: 12/16/2005) 12/12/2005 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order. (related document: Cross Motion re: For an order dismissing Amended Complaint and holding Substitue plaintiff Kartzman in contempt court (related document: Motion to Compel Hugh Mac- Truong to Answer Interrogatories by a Date CertainMotion to Quash Hugh Mac- Truong's AnswerMotion to Quash Hugh Mac-Truong's Answer filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) Filed by Hugh Mac Truong, Mac Truong, Dr) (nds) (Entered: 12/13/2005) 12/02/2005 Amended Certificate of Service (related document: Opposition, filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 12/02/2005) 12/02/2005 Certificate of Service (related document: Opposition, filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 12/02/2005) 12/02/2005 Letter Brief in Opposition to (related document: Cross Motion re: For an order dismissing Amended Complaint and holding Substitue plaintiff Kartzman in contempt court (related document: Motion to Compel Hugh Mac Truong to Answer Interrogatories by a Date CertainMotion to Quash Hugh Mac-Truong filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 12/02/2005) 11/30/2005 Cross Motion re: For an order dismissing Amended Complaint and holding Substitue plaintiff Kartzman in contempt court (related document: Motion to Compel Hugh Mac Truong to Answer Interrogatories by a Date CertainMotion to Quash Hugh Mac- Truong's AnswerMotion to Quash Hugh Mac-Truong's Answer filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) Filed by Hugh Mac Truong, Mac Truong, Dr. Hearing scheduled for 12/12/2005 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Certification # 3 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) (Entered: 12/01/2005) 11/14/2005 Amended Certificate of Service (related document: Motion to Compel,, Motion to Quash, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 11/14/2005) 11/11/2005 Motion to Compel Hugh Mac Truong to Answer Interrogatories by a Date Certain, Motion to Quash Hugh Mac-Truong's Answer Filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. Hearing scheduled for 12/12/2005 at 10:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # Certification # Exhibit A# 3 Proposed Order # 4 Certificate of Service) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 11/11/2005) 11/07/2005 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: RESERVED. (related document: Motion re: to vacate this court's September 21, 05 amended order denying defendants motion for a collateral estoppel order dismissing amended complaint and/or for declaratory judgment(s) filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., 131 Opposition, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman, 132 Cross Motion re: for an Order Compelling Defendants to Participate in Discovery, pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure or in the Alternative, Striking Defendants' Answer; Compelling Defendants to Retain Counsel, and San filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) (rah) (Entered: 11/09/2005) 11/03/2005 Certificate of Service (related document: Response filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Mellinger, Sanders Kartzman, LLC. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 11/03/2005) 11/03/2005 Response to (related document: Support filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 11/03/2005) 11/02/2005 Reply certification in further support of motion to dismiss amened complaint and opposition to plaintiffs cross motion in support of (related document: Motion (Generic). Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 11/04/2005) 11/01/2005 Supplemental certification in further support of motion in support of (related document: Cross Motion, filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 11/02/2005) 10/28/2005 Cross Motion re: for an Order Compelling Defendants to Participate in Discovery, pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure or in the Alternative, Striking Defendants' Answer; Compelling Defendants to Retain Counsel, and Sanctioning Defendants (related document: Motion re: to vacate this court's September 21, 05 amended order denying defendants motion for a collateral estoppel order dismissing amended complaint and/or for declaratory judgment(s) filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) Filed by Steven P. Kartzman.Hearing scheduled for 11/7/2005 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Letter Brief# 2 Schedule A# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Certification # 5 Exhibit A# 6 Proposed Order # 7 Certificate of Service) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 10/28/2005) 10/28/2005 Letter Brief to Judge Winfield in Opposition to Debtors' Motion to Vacate in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: to vacate this court's September 21, 05 amended order denying defendants motion for a collateral estoppel order dismissing amended complaint and/or for declaratory judgment(s) filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Adam G Brief on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Schedule A# 2 Exhibit A) (Brief, Adam) (Entered: 10/28/2005) 09/30/2005 Motion re: to vacate this court's September 21, 05 amended order denying defendants motion for a collateral estoppel order dismissing amended complaint and/or for declaratory judgment(s) Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 11/7/2005 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D. Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification) (ccg,) (Entered: 10/06/2005) 09/25/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 6. Service Date 09/25/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 09/26/2005) 09/25/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 6. Service Date 09/25/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 09/26/2005) 09/21/2005 Amended Order Denying Cross-Motion (related document: Cross Motion re: For An Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss Defense Counterclaim Unde And For A Collateral Estoppel Order Dismissing Amended Complaint (related document: Motion re: Motion to dismiss counterclaims of defendants filed by filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiffs Attorney, Defendant. Signed on 9/21/2005 (mg,) (Entered: 09/23/2005) 09/21/2005 Amended Order Denying Cross-Motion (related document: Cross Motion re: Cross Motion for an order granting leave to amend new answer to amended complaint and denying plaintiff's (related document: Motion re: Motion to dismiss counterclaims of defendants filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, Trust filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant. Signed on 9/21/2005 (mg,) (Entered: 09/23/2005) 09/06/2005 Document re: Letter of Mac Truong filed by Mac Truong, Dr. (ccg,) (Entered: 09/07/2005) 08/26/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 08/26/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/27/2005) 08/25/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 4. Service Date 08/25/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/26/2005) 08/25/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 4. Service Date 08/25/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/26/2005) 08/25/2005 Order Denying Cross Motion (Related Doc # 117). The following parties were served: Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 8/25/2005. (nds) (Entered: 08/25/2005) 08/23/2005 Order Denying Cross Motion (Related Doc # 115). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 8/23/2005. (lh) (Entered: 08/24/2005) 08/23/2005 Order Granting Motion re: dismissal of counterclaims of defendants. (Related Doc # 114). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant. Signed on 8/23/2005. (nds) Modified on 9/26/2005 (nds,). (Entered: 08/23/2005) 08/22/2005 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order. (related document: Cross Motion re: For An Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss Defense Counterclaim And For A Collateral Estoppel Order Dismissing Amended Complaint (related document: Motion re: Motion to dismiss counterclaims of defendants filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong.) (nds) (Entered: 08/29/2005) 08/22/2005 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Granted/Order Signed. (related document: Motion re: Motion to dismiss counterclaims of defendants Filed by Steven P. Kartzman) (nds) (Entered: 08/29/2005) 08/22/2005 Hearing Scheduled for 8/22/2005 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark (related document: Cross Motion for an order granting leave to amend new answer to amended complaint and denying plaintiff's (related document: Motion re: Motion to dismiss counterclaims of defendants filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, Trust filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). (lh) (Entered: 08/22/2005) 08/19/2005 Brief in Opposition to (related document: Cross Motion re: Cross Motion for an order granting leave to amend new answer to amended complaint and denying plaintiff's (related document: Motion re: Motion to dismiss counterclaims of defendants filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, Trust filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 08/19/2005) 08/18/2005 Cross Motion re: for an order granting leave to amend new answer to amended complaint and denying plaintiff's (related document: Motion re: Motion to dismiss counterclaims of defendants filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) Filed by Hugh Mac Truong. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit) (ccg,) Modified on 8/19/2005 (ccg,). (Entered: 08/19/2005) 08/17/2005 Brief in Opposition to (related document: Cross Motion re: For An Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss Defense Counterclaim Unde And For A Collateral Estoppel Order Dismissing Amended Complaint (related document: Motion re: Motion to dismiss counterclaims of defendants filed by filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Etterman. Bruce) (Entered: 08/17/2005) 08/17/2005 Cross Motion re: For An Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion To Dismiss Defense Counterclaim And For A Collateral Estoppel Order Dismissing Amended Complaint (related document: Motion re: Motion to dismiss counterclaims of defendants filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 8/22/2005 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification In Support Of# 2 Brief) (dlr,) Modified on 8/17/2005 (dlr,). (Entered: 08/17/2005) 07/29/2005 Motion re: Motion to dismiss counterclaims of defendants Filed by Steven P. Kartzman.Hearing scheduled for 8/22/2005 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Brief # 2 Certificate of Service of Bruce S. Etterman# 3 Proposed Order) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 07/29/2005) 07/22/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 07/22/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 07/23/2005) 07/19/2005 Scheduling Order (related document: Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff/Trustee Steven P. Kartzman). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 7/19/2005. (lh) (Entered: 07/20/2005) 07/15/2005 Answer to Complaint filed by Mac Truong, Dr. (ccg,) (Entered: 07/18/2005) 07/15/2005 Amended Answer to Complaint filed by Hugh Mac Truong. (ccg,) Modified on 7/18/2005 (ccg,). (Entered: 07/18/2005) 07/14/2005 Document re: Certified Copy of Motion Filed in District Court to Reconsider Order of 6/21/05. (related document: Order District Court re: Appeal,, 102 Order District Court re: Appeal,) (ekp.) (CV#05-2595) (Entered: 07/21/2005) 07/14/2005 Document re: Certified Copy of Motion filed in District Court for Reconsideration of Order of 6/30/05. (related document: Order District Court re: Appeal,, 102 Order District Court re: Appeal,) (ekp,) (CV#05-2847) Modified on 7/21/2005 to add CV#. (ekp,). (Entered: 07/21/2005) 07/11/2005 Supplemental Certifiation in support of motion in support of (related document: Order (Generic), Order (Generic), Order (Generic), Order (Generic)) filed by Mac Truong, Dr. (ccg,) (Entered: 07/12/2005) 07/07/2005 Correspondence re: Concerning Order of 4/26/05 and subsequent Appeal filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (msr,) (Entered: 07/26/2005) 07/07/2005 Minute of Status Conference Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Status Conference Hearing Held/Scheduling Order To Be Submitted. (related document: Status Conference Hearing Scheduled) (nds) (Entered: 07/13/2005) 07/01/2005 Certified Copy of Letter-Order By District Court Judge William Bassler Superseding the Court's June 21, 2005 Order (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) Signed on 7/1/2005 (ekp,) (Entered: 07/07/2005) 06/30/2005 Correspondence re: Concerning Defendant's Notice of Appeal of 4/11/05 Order filed by Hugh Mac Truong. (msr,) (Entered: 07/05/2005) 06/28/2005 Correspondence re: Advising defendants that Court will not adjourn status conference (related document: Hearing (Case Owned) Sched/Cont/Resched) filed by Novalyn L. Winfield. (smz,) (Entered: 06/28/2005) 06/27/2005 Response to (related document: Motion To Stay Pending Appeal filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong, 77 Motion re: Stay Pending Threshold Motion in the U.S.D.C. filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 06/27/2005) 06/24/2005 Certified Copy of Order By District Court Judge William Bassler Dismissing Interlocutory Appeal Bankruptcy Court Order, (related document: Transmittal of Record on Appeal (USDC), Transmittal of Record on Appeal (USDC), 80 Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.). Signed on 6/24/2005. (ekp,) (CV#05-2847) (Entered: 06/28/2005) 06/24/2005 Certified Copy of Order By District Court Judge William Bassler Dismissing Interlocutory Appeal (related document: Transmittal of Record on Appeal (USDC), Transmittal of Record on Appeal (USDC), 87 Transmittal of Record on Appeal (USDC), Transmittal of Record on Appeal (USDC), 73 Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). Signed on 6/24/2005 (ekp,) (CV#05-2595) (Entered: 06/28/2005) 06/16/2005 Status hearing to be held on 7/7/2005 at 10:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. Appearance by all parties and their counsel is required. (lh,) (Entered: 06/16/2005) 06/16/2005 Order Directing Parties to Appear at Status Conference (related document: Motion re: Stay Pending Threshold Motion in the U.S.D.C. filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, 84 Motion To Stay Pending Appeal filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). Status Conference scheduled for hearing on 7/7/05 at 10:00 AM. The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiffs Attorney, Defendant (s), Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 6/16/2005. (lh) (Entered: 06/16/2005) 06/04/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 4. Service Date 06/04/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 06/05/2005) 06/04/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 4. Service Date 06/04/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 06/05/2005) 06/03/2005 Notice of Docketing Record on Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.). Civil Action Number: 05-2847. Judge William Bassler assigned. (ekp,) (Entered: 06/21/2005) 06/02/2005 Transmittal of Record on Appeal to U.S. District Court (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., 85 Appeal Designation,, Statement of Issues on Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) (Attachments: # 1 List of Parties) (msr) (Entered: 06/02/2005) 06/01/2005 Response to (related document: Response filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (msr,) (Entered: 06/03/2005) 06/01/2005 Order Denying Motion To Stay Pending Appeal (Related Doc # 84). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 6/1/2005. (dlr,) (Entered: 06/02/2005) 06/01/2005 Order Denying Motion re: For A Stay Pending Threshold Motion In USDC. (Related Doc # 77). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 6/1/2005. (dlr,) (Entered: 06/02/2005) 05/31/2005 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order. (related document: Motion To Stay Pending Appeal Filed by Hugh Mac Truong) (nds) (Entered: 06/02/2005) 05/31/2005 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order. (related document: Motion re: Stay Pending Threshold Motion in the U.S.D.C. Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong) (nds) (Entered: 06/02/2005) 05/25/2005 Response to (related document: Document filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 05/25/2005) 05/20/2005 Document re: Letter Mac Truong filed by Mac Truong. (ccg,) Modified on 6/15/2005 (ccg,). (Entered: 05/25/2005) 05/20/2005 Letter Memorandum in Opposition to (related document: Motion To Stay Pending Appeal filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong, 77 Motion re: Stay Pending Threshold Motion in the U.S.D.C. filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 05/20/2005) 05/19/2005 Notice of Docketing Record on Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). Civil Action Number: 05-2595. Judge William Bassler assigned. (ekp,) (Entered: 06/07/2005) 05/19/2005 AMENDED Transmittal of Record on Appeal to U.S. District Court (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) and (related document: Letter re: Appeals (Attachments: # 1 List of parties) (msr) ADDED LINK on 5/20/2005 (msr). (Entered: 05/19/2005) 05/19/2005 Transmittal of Record on Appeal to U.S. District Court (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong, 79 Appeal Designation, Statement of Issues on Appeal,, filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) (Attachments: # 1 List of Parties) (msr) (Entered: 05/19/2005) 05/18/2005 Designation of Record On Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.), Statement of Issues on Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. Transmission of Record due 6/2/2005. (msr,) (Entered: 05/19/2005) 05/17/2005 Hearing Rescheduled from 5/17/05. (related document: Status Conference) Hearing scheduled for 5/31/2005 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (nds) (Entered: 05/18/2005) 05/16/2005 Status Conference scheduled for 5/17/2005 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. Bruce Etterman, Esquire will appear by telephone. (1h) (Entered: 05/16/2005) 05/06/2005 Document re: Letter regarding defendants' notices of appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong, 80 Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 05/06/2005) 05/04/2005 Motion To Stay Pending Appeal Filed by Hugh Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 5/31/2005 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification In Support Of# 2 Certification Defendant's Hugn Mac-Troung's Certification) (dlr,) (Entered: 05/06/2005) 05/02/2005 Amended Clerk's Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) (msr) (Entered: 05/02/2005) 04/29/2005 Clerk's Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) (msr) (Entered: 04/29/2005) 04/29/2005 Receipt of Fee Amount $ 255.00, Receipt Number 309439. (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.). Fee received from Mac Truong (msr) (Entered: 04/29/2005) 04/29/2005 Notice of Appeal (related document: Order Denying Motion for an Order Dismissing Amended Complaint). Receipt Number 309439, Fee Amount $ 255. Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. Appellant Designation due by 5/9/2005. (msr) DISREGARD PAGES 5 THROUGH 14. DOES NOT BELONG TO THIS APPEAL. Modified LINK on 5/2/2005 (msr). (Entered: 04/29/2005) 04/28/2005 Designation of Record On Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong), Statement of Issues on Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) Filed by Hugh Mac Truong. Transmission of Record due 5/13/2005. (msr,) (Entered: 04/29/2005) 04/28/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 4. Service Date 04/28/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 04/29/2005) 04/26/2005 Order Denying Motion For An Order Dismissing Amended Complaint Under Rule 7012(b), And/Or For Summary Judgment Under Rule 7056 And/Or To RenewUnder F.R.Civ. P. (b) Defense Motion To Vacate This Court's August 27, 2004 Order Authorizing Substitution Of Trustee As Party Plaintiff And AmendingComplaint Filed By Mac Truong And Maryse Mac Truong (related document: Motion re: For An Dismissing Amended Complaint Under Rule 7012(b), And/Or For Summary Judgement Under Rule 7056 And/Or To Renew Under F.R.C, v.P. 60(b) Defense Motion To Vacate This Court's August 27, 2004 Order Authorizing Substitution Of Trustee filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 4/26/2005 (dlr,) (Entered: 04/26/2005) 04/25/2005 Motion re: Stay Pending Threshold Motion in the U.S.D.C. Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 5/31/2005 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Certificate of Service) (msr,) (Entered: 04/28/2005) 04/15/2005 Clerk's Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) (msr) (Entered: 04/15/2005) 04/15/2005 Receipt of Fee Amount $ 255.00, Receipt Number 309010. (related document: Notice of Appeal, filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). Fee received from Hugh Mac Truong (msr) (Entered: 04/15/2005) 04/15/2005 Notice of Appeal (related document: Order on Motion For Summary Judgment,, 70 Document filed by Interested Party Novalyn L. Winfield). Receipt Number 309010, Fee Amount $ 255. Filed by Hugh Mac Truong. Appellant Designation due by 4/25/2005. (msr,) (Entered: 04/15/2005) 04/14/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 04/14/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 04/15/2005) 04/14/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 04/14/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 04/15/2005) 04/11/2005 Document re: Letter of the court that a status conference in this adversary proceeding shall be held on April 26, 2005 at 9:00am filed by Novalyn L. Winfield. (ccg,) (Entered: 04/27/2005) 04/11/2005 Document re: Opinion (related document: Order on Motion For Summary Judgment,) filed by Novalyn L. Winfield. (msr,) (Entered: 04/12/2005) 04/11/2005 Order Denying Motion For Summary Judgment To Dismiss Amended Adversary Complaint and/or to Reconsider or Renew Defense Motion to Vacate this Court's December 27, 2004 Order and (Related Doc # 66). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 4/11/2005. (msr) (Entered: 04/12/2005) 03/28/2005 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order. (related document: Motion For Summary Judgment to dismiss amended complaint Filed by Hugh Mac Truong) (nds) (Entered: 04/01/2005) 03/28/2005 Reply Certification in further support of (related document: Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Hugh Mac Truong. (ccg,) Modified on 3/29/2005 (cls,). (Entered: 03/28/2005) 03/18/2005 Letter Memorandum in Opposition to (related document: Motion For Summary Judgment and. filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) Modified Text on 3/18/2005 (sg,). (Entered: 03/18/2005) 03/02/2005 Hearing Rescheduled from 10:00 AM on 3/28/05 to 2:00 PM on 3/28/2005 at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark (related document: Motion For Summary Judgment and. filed by Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). RESCHEDULED TO COMPLY WITH JUDGE WINFIELD'S CALENDAR REQUIREMENTS — NOTICE OF TIME CHANGE SENT TO PRO SE MOVANT ON 3/2/05 BY U.S.P.S. (lh,) (Entered: 03/02/2005) 02/24/2005 Motion For Summary Judgment to dismiss amended complaint Filed by Hugh Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 3/28/2005 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) Modified on 2/28/2005 (ccg,). (Entered: 02/28/2005) 02/18/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 02/18/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 02/19/2005) 02/16/2005 Order Denying Motion To Reconsider (Related Doc # 59). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 2/16/2005. (dlr,) (Entered: 02/16/2005) 02/14/2005 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order. (related document: Motion to Reconsider (related document: Order (Generic). Order (Generic), Order (Generic), Order (Generic)) Filed by Hugh Mac Truong) (nds) (Entered: 02/16/2005) 02/09/2005 Reply certifiation in further support of motion for an order reconsidering and vacating in support of (related document: Motion to Reconsider, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Hugh Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 02/10/2005) 02/07/2005 Document re: Letter memorandum on behalf of Trustee in lieu of a more formal brief in opposition to (related document: Motion to Reconsider) (ccg,) Modified on 2/9/2005 (cls,). (Entered: 02/08/2005) 02/04/2005 Letter Memorandum in Opposition to (related document: Motion to Reconsider (related document: Order (Generic), Order (Generic), Order (Generic), Order (Generic)) filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) Modified on 2/7/2005 (cag,). (Entered: 02/04/2005) 01/07/2005 Answer to Amended Complaint filed by Hugh Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 01/11/2005) 01/07/2005 Motion to Reconsider (related document: Order (Generic), Order (Generic), Order (Generic), Order (Generic)) Filed by Hugh Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 2/14/2005 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) Modified on 1/13/2005 (ccg,). (Entered: 01/11/2005) 01/07/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 01/07/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/08/2005) 01/07/2005 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 01/07/2005. (Admin.) (Entered: 01/08/2005) 01/05/2005 Order Granting Answer is Stricken, Defendant shall have until January 18, 2005 to file and serve Answer to Amended Complaint (Related Doc # 46) Cross Motion to Dismiss is Denied with Prejudice (Related Doc # 54). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 1/5/2005. (dmc,) (Entered: 01/05/2005) 12/27/2004 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Striking Of Answer Granted; 20 Days To File New Answer/Order To Be Submitted. (related document: Motion re: striking Defendant Hugh Mac-Truong's Answer to Complaint and entering default against Defendant Filed by Steven P. Kartzman) (nds) (Entered: 12/30/2004) 12/13/2004 Hearing Rescheduled from 12/13/04 (related document: Motion re: striking Defendant Hugh Mac-Truong's Answer to Complaint and entering default against Defendant filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, Trustee Steven P. Kartzman, Hearing (Document) Scheduled, Hearing (Document) Scheduled). New hearing scheduled for 12/27/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (lh,) (Entered: 12/15/2004) 11/29/2004 Document re: Certification in support of request for continuance or for making motion submitted on papers filed by Hugh Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 12/02/2004) 11/29/2004 Motion re: For An Order Dismissing Amended Complaint Under Rule 7012(b), And/Or For Summary Judgement Under Rule 7056 And/Or To Renew Under F.R.C, v.P. 60(b) Defense Motion To Vacate This Court's August 27, 2004 Order Authorizing Substitution Of Trustee As party Plaintiff And Amending Complaint Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 1/10/2005 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification Of Defendants In Support Of# 2 Certificate of Service) (dlr,) Modified on 12/1/2004 (cls,). (Entered: 11/30/2004) 11/20/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 11/20/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 11/22/2004) 11/18/2004 Opinion (related document: Motion re: to vacate this court August 27, 2004 order authorizing substitution of trustee as plaintiff and amending complaint filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 11/18/2004 (ccg,) (Entered: 11/22/2004) 11/18/2004 Order Denying Motion re: Motyong To Vacate Order Authorizing Substitution Of Trustee. (Related Doc # 36). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 11/18/2004. (dlr,) (Entered: 11/18/2004) 11/09/2004 Document re: Letter from the Judge rescheduling the matter for 12/13/04 at 10:00 A.M. filed by. (ccg,) (Entered: 11/15/2004) 11/09/2004 CORRECTED MINUTE: Hearing Rescheduled for 12/13/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark (related document: Motion re: striking Defendant Hugh Mac-Truong's Answer to Complaint and entering default against Defendant filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, Trustee Steven P. Kartzman). (lh) (Entered: 11/09/2004) 11/08/2004 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Granted/Court Order. (related document: Motion re: striking Defendant Hugh Mac-Truong's Answer to Complaint and entering default against Defendant Filed by Steven P. Kartzman) (nds) (Entered: 11/08/2004) 11/05/2004 Supplemental certification in further support of sub judice motion to vacate this courts August 27, 2004 order in support of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) (Entered: 11/08/2004) 11/02/2004 LETTER MEMORANDUM IN REPONSE TO (related document 48 Certification in opposition (related document: Motion re: striking Defendant Hugh Mac-Truong's Answer to Complaint and entering default against Defendant filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) Modified EVENT on 11/3/2004 (clb). Modified Link to #48 on 11/5/2004 (sg,). (Entered: 11/02/2004) 10/27/2004 Certification in opposition of (related document: Motion (Generic), Motion (Generic) filed by Plaintiff Steven P. Kartzman, Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Hugh Mac Truong. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) Modified on 11/4/2004 (cls,). (Entered: 11/03/2004) 10/18/2004 Motion re: striking Defendant Hugh Mac-Truong's Answer to Complaint and entering default against Defendant Filed by Steven P. Kartzman.Hearing scheduled for 11/8/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Letter Memorandum# Declaration of Bruce S. Etterman# 3 Exhibit A-C# 4 Declaration of Service# 5 Proposed Order) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 10/18/2004) 10/05/2004 Certificate of Service (related document: Answer to Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 10/13/2004) 10/05/2004 Answer to Amended Complaint filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 10/13/2004) 09/27/2004 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: On The Papers. (related document: Motion re: to vacate this court August 27, 2004 order authorizing substitution of trustee as plaintiff and amending complaint Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong) (nds) (Entered: 10/01/2004) 09/23/2004 Amended Order Denying Motion Or Application For The Entry Of An Order To Dismiss Adversary Proceeding (related document: Order on Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 9/23/2004 (dlr,) (Entered: 09/23/2004) 09/22/2004 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding (Related Doc # 31). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 9/22/2004. (dlr,) (Entered: 09/22/2004) 09/20/2004 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Denied/Court Order. (related document: Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong.) (nds) (Entered: 09/24/2004) 09/20/2004 Letter Memorandum on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman in opposition to the debtors' Motion To Vacate this Court's 8-27-04 Order Authorizing Substitution of Trustee as Plaintiff and Amending Complaint in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: to vacate this court August 27, 2004 order authorizing substitution of trustee as plaintiff and amending complaint filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # Declaration of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 09/20/2004) 09/14/2004 Document re: Letter by Mc Truong re Amended complaint filed by Mac Truong, Dr. (ccg,) (Entered: 09/24/2004) 09/14/2004 Document re: Amended Reply Certification in support of motion dismissing complaint filed by Mac Truong, Dr. (ccg,) (Entered: 09/23/2004) 09/13/2004 Reply Certification in support of (related document: Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 09/17/2004) 09/10/2004 Letter Memorandum in Opposition to (related document: Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # Declaration of Bruce S. Etterman# Exhibit A# 3 Declaration of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 09/10/2004) 09/01/2004 Motion re: to vacate this court August 27, 2004 order authorizing substitution of trustee as plaintiff and amending complaint Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 9/27/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) (Entered: 09/09/2004) 08/31/2004 Amended Complaint Filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. Reason for amendment: Court Order dated 8/27/04. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (clb) DUE TO SYSTEM ERROR — E-MAILED TO COURT FOR FILING — NO FILE DATE STAMP. Modified on 8/31/2004 (clb). (Entered: 08/31/2004) 08/29/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 08/29/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/30/2004) 08/27/2004 Order Granting Motion re: Authorizing Substitution Of Trustee As Plaintiff And Amending Complaint. (Related Doc # 14). The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 8/27/2004. (dlr,) (Entered: 08/27/2004) 08/27/2004 Opinion by Hon. Novalyn L. Winfield The following parties were served: Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Attorney, Defendant, Defendant's Attorney. Signed on 8/27/2004 (ccg,) (Entered: 08/27/2004) 08/12/2004 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 9/20/2004 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification Of Defendants# Certificate of Service # 3 Proposed Order) (dlr,) (Entered: 08/13/2004) 08/06/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 08/06/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 08/07/2004) 08/04/2004 Order Denying Motion Or Application For The Entry Of A Consent Order Dismissing Adversary (related document: Document filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Hugh Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Defendant, Plaintiff And Attorney. Signed on 8/4/2004. (dlr,) (Entered: 08/04/2004) 08/02/2004 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Application For Order Dismissed Without Prejudice/Court Order. (related document: Notice of Hearing filed (related document: Proposed Consent Order filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Hugh Mac Truong, Letter Memorandum in Objection to Proposed Consent Order, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) (nds) (Entered: 08/04/2004) 07/23/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 1. Service Date 07/23/2004. (Admin.) (Entered: 07/24/2004) 07/22/2004 Document re: Letter by Bruce Etterman filed by Bruce S. Etterman. (ccg,) (Entered: 07/28/2004) 07/21/2004 Notice of Hearing filed (related document: Proposed Consent Order filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Hugh Mac Truong, 23 Letter Memorandum in Objection to Proposed Consent Order, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman). Hearing scheduled for 8/2/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (lh) (Entered: 07/21/2004) 07/21/2004 Response to (related document: Document, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 07/21/2004) 07/19/2004 Document re: Certification of the defendants as a reply to Trustee's Objection to proposed consent and/or unopposed order dismissing adversary proceedings. (related document: Document, filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (gwi,) (Entered: 07/20/2004) 07/16/2004 Document re: Letter Memorandum objecting to the purported Consent and/or Unopposed Order Dismissing Adversary proceeding With Prejudice (related document: Document filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr., Defendant Hugh Mac Truong) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 07/16/2004) 07/07/2004 Document re: Certification in support of consent and/or unopposed order dismissing adversary proceeding with prejudice. filed by Hugh Mac Truong, Mac Truong, Dr. (ccg,) (Entered: 07/13/2004) 05/28/2004 Document re: Letter responding to Defendants' Reply Certification and our appearance in Court on May 24, 2004. (related document: Cross Motion, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 05/28/2004) 05/25/2004 Certification of cross-motion and opposition to trustee in support of (related document: Cross Motion, filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Mac Truong, Dr. (ccg,) (Entered: 06/03/2004) 05/24/2004 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Reserved. (related document: Cross Motion re: For order denying Trustees motion to substitute as Plaintiff and file amended complaint and to vacate this court order granting him leave to appoint Hellring (related document: Motion re: Leave for Trustee to file Amended Complaint filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong.) (nds) (Entered: 05/25/2004) 05/24/2004 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Reserved. (related document: Motion re: Leave for Trustee to file Amended Complaint Filed by Steven P. Kartzman) (nds) (Entered: 05/25/2004) 05/19/2004 Reply Letter Memorandum in Opposition to (related document: Cross Motion re: For order denying Trustees motion to substitute as Plaintiff and file amended complaint and to vacate this court order granting him leave to appoint Hellring (related document: Motion re: Leave for Trustee to file Amended Complaint filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong, Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Bruce S. Etterman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Reply Declaration of Steven P. Kartzman# 2 Exhibit A-C# 3 Certificate of Service) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 05/19/2004) 05/10/2004 Cross Motion re: For order denying Trustees motion to substitute as Plaintiff and file amended complaint and to vacate this court order granting him leave to appoint Hellring (related document: Motion re: Leave for Trustee to file Amended Complaint filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) Filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong.Hearing scheduled for 5/24/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification # 2 Certificate of Service) (ccg,) (Entered: 05/13/2004) 05/09/2004 BNC Certificate of Service — Order No. of Notices: 2. Service Date 05/09/2004. (Related Doc # 16) (Admin.) (Entered: 05/10/2004) 05/05/2004 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding (Related Doc # 6) The following parties were served: Defendant, Plaintiff And Attorneys. Signed on 5/5/2004. (dlr,) (Entered: 05/07/2004) 04/28/2004 Letter in Opposition to (related document: Motion re: Leave for Trustee to file Amended Complaint filed by Trustee Steven P. Kartzman) filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 05/03/2004) 04/23/2004 Motion re: Leave for Trustee to file Amended Complaint Filed by Steven P. Kartzman.Hearing scheduled for 5/24/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # Memorandum of Law # Declaration of Steven P. Kartzman# Exhibits A, B C to Declaration of Kartzman# 4 Declaration of Service# 5 Proposed Order) (Etterman, Bruce) (Entered: 04/23/2004) 04/01/2004 Objection to (related document: Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Mac Truong, Dr. (sdm,) (Entered: 04/02/2004) 03/19/2004 Document re: Letter in response to the (related document: Objection filed by Defendant Maryse Mac Truong) filed by Elliot Scher on behalf of Broadwhite Associates, A New York Limited Partnership. (rh,) (Entered: 03/30/2004) 03/15/2004 Objection to (related document: Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 03/26/2004) 02/17/2004 Minute of Hearing Held, OUTCOME: Reserved. (related document: Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding And Closing This Adversary Proceeding Filed by Mac Truong, Dr) (nds) (Entered: 02/19/2004) 02/12/2004 Certification as a reply to Trustee's objection to motion to dismiss complaint in support of (related document: Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Mac Truong, Dr., Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 02/17/2004) 02/10/2004 Certification of Steven P. Kartzman, Chapter 7 Trustee in Opposition to (related document: Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Steven P. Kartzman on behalf of Steven P. Kartzman. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Kartzman, Steven) (Entered: 02/10/2004) 01/30/2004 Hearing Rescheduled from 2/9/04 to 2/17/2004 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark (related document: Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding filed by Defendant Mac Truong). (lh) (Entered: 01/30/2004) 01/20/2004 Reply Certification of Defendant in support of (related document: Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding, filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Maryse Mac Truong. (ccg,) (Entered: 01/23/2004) 01/16/2004 Letter in Opposition to (related document: Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding filed by Defendant Mac Truong, Dr.) filed by Elliot Scher on behalf of Broadwhite Associates, A New York Limited Partnership. (smz,) (Entered: 01/23/2004) 01/05/2004 Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding And Closing This Adversary Proceeding Filed by Mac Truong, Dr. Hearing scheduled for 2/9/2004 at 02:00 PM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (Attachments: # 1 Certification Of Defendant# 2 Certificate of Service) (dlr,) Modified on 1/8/2004 (dlr,). (Entered: 01/08/2004) 12/10/2003 Summons Issued to Broadwhite Associates for Service on Mac Truong, Dr. Answer due on 1/9/2004; Maryse Mac Truong Answer due on 1/9/2004 Pre-Trial hearing to be held on 3/23/2004 at 09:00 AM at NLW — Courtroom 3D, Newark. (ccg,) (Entered: 12/10/2003) 10/23/2003 Document re: Notice of Allocation and Assignment filed by District Court (related document:1 Complaint filed by Plaintiff Broadwhite Associates, A New York Limited Partnership) filed by Hugh Mac Truong. (tcw,) (Entered: 10/24/2003) 10/22/2003 Certification in Opposition to (related document: Document filed by Other Prof. Stephen P. McGoldrick) filed by Hugh Mac Truong, Mac Truong, Dr. (smz,) (Entered: 10/27/2003) 10/22/2003 Document re: Letter submitted by Departmental Disciplinary Committee requesting that the matter be summarily remanded to the Appellate Division. filed by Stephen P. McGoldrick. (smz,) (Entered: 10/27/2003) 10/22/2003 Complaint by Broadwhite Associates, A New York Limited Partnership against Mac Truong, Dr.; Maryse Mac Truong; Sylvanine DeCrouy; Hugh Mac Truong. Nature of Suit: Notice of Removal. (smz,) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/23/2003 (smz,). (Entered: 10/22/2003)

Exhibit 4

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE: Case No. 07-10696 (JMP) TO-VIET-DAO, LLP Chapter 11 Debtor. Manhattan, New York Wednesday, July 18, 2007 10:28 a.m. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING RE: DETERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 327 DEMOTT AVENUE, TEANECK, NEW JERSEY BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES M. PECK UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: Yung H. Hsu, Esq. 325 Broadway, #200 New York, New York 10007 For the U.S. Trustee: Andrew D. Velez-Rivera, Esq. Serene K. Nakano, Esq. OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE 33 Whitehall Street, 21st Floor New York, New York 10004 For the Chapter 7 Trustee: Richard B. Honig, Esq. HELLRING LINDEMAN GOLDSTEIN SIEGAL, LLP One Gateway Center Newark, New Jersey 07102 Audio Operator: Electronically Recorded by Karen Cappiello, ECRO Transcription Company: Rand Transcript Service 80 Broad Street, Fifth Floor New York, New York 10004 (212) 504-2919 www.randtranscript.com Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service. Chapter 7 Trustee: Steven P. Kartzman, Esq. MELLINGER SANDERS KARTZMAN, LLC 101 Gibraltar Drive, Suite 2F Morris Plains, NJ 07950

(Proceedings commence at 10:28 a.m.)

THE COURT: To-Viet-Dao.

(Pause in proceedings.)

THE COURT: Have appearances all been handed in to the reporter? Why don't we take a moment and do that.

Do you have everybody's name?

COURT REPORTER: No.

MR. HONIG: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard B. Honig, Hellring Lindeman Goldstein Siegal, counsel for Steven Kartzman, Trustee.

MR. KARTZMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Steven Kartzman, the Chapter 7 Trustee in the case of Mac Truong and Maryse Mac Truong in the District of New Jersey. I'm also an attorney with the firm Mellinger Sanders Kartzman. My firm is attorneys for the trustee. Mr. Honig's firm is special counsel.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. VELEZ-RIVERA: Good morning, Your Honor. Andrew Velez-Rivera for the United States Trustee. To my left, Your Honor, is Serene Nakano, a trial — a new trial attorney in my office. She will be handling the matter along with me.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. TRUONG: I am Maryse Mac Truong. I am a general partner of To-Viet-Dao.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, I could not hear you clearly. Could you —

MS. TRUONG: Oh, I am Maryse Mac Truong and I am the general partner of To-Viet-Dao.

MR. KARTZMAN: Maryse —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. KARTZMAN: — Mac Truong, the general partner, Your Honor.

MR. HONIG: In other words, Your Honor, no counsel is here on —

MS. TRUONG: Yeah.

MR. HONIG: — behalf of the debtor in this case.

MS. TRUONG: I'm just — I assume that he should be here. He told me that he would be here. So I'm surprise he did not show up yet.

THE COURT: So the lawyer's not here?

MS. TRUONG: Is that's what he told me is that he would be coming, and I tried to reach him this morning, but I could not reach him on his phone before I surrender my phone.

THE COURT: Okay, well it's his motion which led to this proceeding and we're going to proceed without him.

I have read the very extensive papers that were submitted on extremely short notice by the trustee and the trustee's counsel and I'm extraordinarily disturbed by what I have seen from public documents filed by the bankruptcy court in the District of New Jersey and by the Chief Judge of the District of New Jersey relating to this matter.

And perhaps it's in recognition of the extraordinary professional embarrassment that counsel for To-Viet-Dao would experience or perhaps the extreme sanctions that he would be exposed to, including not only economic sanctions, but potential disciplinary problems from both the State Bar of the State of New York and those who are responsible for the admission of attorneys to practice in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, that he is not here.

I believe that this hearing has been scheduled upon a false pretense and that the papers that were filed on an emergency basis on July 13 by To-Viet-Dao, LLP in which Maryse Mac Truong submitted, through counsel I believe, an affirmation in support of order to show cause relating to an alleged violation of the automatic stay and attached correspondence sent by the lawyer Yung H. Hsu — I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing the last name correctly, it's H-s-u — an attorney with offices at 135-26 Roosevelt Avenue, 2B, Flushing, New York 11354, addressed to Mr. Kartzman.

These two letters, one dated June 21, 2007 and another dated July 3, 2007, purported to allege a series of warnings to Mr. Kartzman that he was in violation of the automatic stay relating to the commencement of the bankruptcy case and additionally requested a turnover of certain real property to this Chapter 11 debtor.

As a result of that ex parte request for an order to show cause why a hearing should not be scheduled, on Friday, July 13, 2007, I modified the proposed form of order to show cause which was otherwise coercive in nature to provide for relatively short notice to the Chapter 7 trustee in New Jersey to attend a hearing today in this courtroom at 10:00 a.m. — it's now 10:35 a.m. . . .

"For purposes of determining ownership of real property located at 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey, and to determine whether the proposed action by Steven P. Kartzman, Esquire as Chapter 7 Trustee constitutes a violation of the automatic stay in this Chapter 11 case."

In response to that order to show cause, through counsel, Mr. Kartzman has submitted a certification, a letter brief dated July 13, 2007, and attached to the certification a series of exhibits which exhibits include a decision and order dated July 5, 2007 by The Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr., Chief United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey.

Chief Judge Brown, in a memorandum opinion, recites the remarkably tortured and convoluted procedural history of this matter, and among other things, affirms 12 separate orders entered by the bankruptcy court in New Jersey, denies the appellants' motions — and the appellants are principals, it would appear, of the limited partnership that is the debtor before me — and makes clear that the transfer of real property known as 327 Demott Avenue to the entity known as To-Viet-Dao, LLP, the Chapter 11 debtor in this case, was a transfer that was an obvious and conspicuous fraudulent conveyance of no validity whatsoever, apparently part of a scheme to defraud creditors and the Chapter 7 trustee Mr. Kartzman, which Mr. Kartzman uncovered as a result of conducting a title search in the Fall of 2006.

Judge Brown's opinion recites that the title search revealed that on October 16, 2006, Mt-Ears conveyed title of 327 Demott Avenue to an entity named To-Viet-Dao, LLP, a limited liability partnership whose main office address is 326 Broadway, Suite 200, New York, New York, which was determined to be Mac Truong's office/business address and which appears on letterhead used by all appellants and debtors throughout the proceedings in New Jersey. The consideration paid for the transfer to To-Viet-Dao was $10.

Judge Brown's decision goes through an analysis of the badges of fraud as found in the New Jersey Fraudulent Conveyance Statute. After listing those badges of fraud, he finds at Page 8 of his opinion:

"Here, there are several badges of fraud that can be applied against appellants as intent on their behalf to defraud. First, both transfers in question were to insiders. An insider, as defined in N.J.S.A. 25:2-22(a), includes a relative of a debtor so long as that debtor is an individual. Here, the first transfer was from individual relatives Mac and Maryse Truong to Sylvaine Decrouy" — D-e-c-r-o-u-y — "Maryse Truong's sister and Mac Truong's sister-in-law. Thereafter, an additional transfer was made from Decrouy to Hugh Mac Truong, Mac and Maryse Truong's then 18-year-old son."

Without going through each and every one of the findings made by Judge Brown, he concludes:

"As several of the badges of fraud have been satisfied in favor of appellee and as there are no questions of material fact, the bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment in favor of appellee as to count one of the amended complaint."

His opinion proceeds to analyze each of the counts as to which the bankruptcy court had awarded summary judgment in favor of the trustee.

Significantly, toward the end of Judge Brown's opinion in Section F appearing on Page 14 of the document which is attached to the certification of the trustee as Exhibit K, Judge Brown recites:

"As previously discussed, soon after the issuance by the bankruptcy court of its first summary judgment order, it was discovered that 327 Demott Avenue was transferred for virtually no consideration from Hugh Mac Truong to Mt-Ears, LLP and subsequently to To-Viet-Dao, LLP, both limited liability partnerships and both owned and operated by Mac and/or Maryse Truong. On the same basis as previously listed, the bankruptcy court issued a supplemental order enforcing its original summary judgment order and voiding any then existing or future transfers. That order was certainly appropriate under the circumstances. As such, the December 7, 2006 supplemental summary judgment order is affirmed."

This District Court affirmance of the December 7, 2006 supplemental summary judgment order took place on July 5th, 2007, approximately eight days before the emergency request was made for an order to show cause in my court.

By order dated February 15, 2007, Bankruptcy Judge Winfield of the District of New Jersey authorized the trustee, under the supervision and with the assistance of the U.S. Marshal, to take all necessary steps to take possession of the premises located at 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey, including breaking open and entering said premises and removing all persons located within said premises as of the 45th day following entry of the order.

This Chapter 11 case was commenced as a Chapter 13 case on March 15, 2007, after the entry of all of the bankruptcy court orders in New Jersey that have since been affirmed by Chief Judge Brown of the District of New Jersey.

When the Chapter 13 was first assigned to me, I conducted a hearing on my regular Chapter 13 calendar. Mr. Truong appeared at that hearing. I explained to Mr. Truong that a limited liability partnership did not qualify to file as a debtor under Chapter 13 and that the case would either be dismissed or converted. I further noted that a limited partnership could not appear in this court without counsel. He said that he was an attorney but that he was suspended from practice. I told him at the time that if he was going to continue to appear and be heard in my court with respect to matters relating to the bankruptcy filing of To-Viet-Dao, he would need to engage counsel.

Evidently, the attorney who was engaged to represent To-Viet-Dao is the attorney who has been corresponding with the trustee, Mr. Yung H. Hsu. Mr. Hsu is not in court today to represent the interest of To-Viet-Dao, nor is the individual Maryse Mac Truong, whose affirmation in support of order to show cause resulted in the scheduling of this hearing.

MR. KARTZMAN: Excuse me, Your Honor. This is Maryse Mac Truong. Mac Truong, the husband of Maryse Mac Truong who appeared before Your Honor, is not here today.

THE COURT: I see. Thank you.

Are you Maryse?

MS. TRUONG: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: I amend my prior statement. Maryse Mac Truong is in fact present in court, but is not represented by counsel.

At the time that the affirmation in support of order to show cause was presented to this Court on Friday, July 13th, the affirmation, which speaks for itself, made no reference to the various court orders including the memorandum decision of Chief Judge Brown relating to this property. As a result, this Court was misled and based upon the history of this litigation, this Court believes intentionally misled by an affirmation that failed to include material information that was necessary in order to make the affirmation clear and — understandable.

The relief requested is not obtainable as a matter of law. It is apparent based upon this record that at the time To-Viet-Dao, LLP commenced a Chapter 13 case in March of 2007, the transfer of 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey to this debtor had already been avoided and set aside by final orders of the bankruptcy court for the District of New Jersey. Those orders, to the extent appealed to the District Court, have now been affirmed.

There are serious questions of misconduct here; misconduct, misrepresentation, and bankruptcy abuse for which the individual responsible should be held accountable.

MR. HSU: Excuse me, Judge.

THE COURT: Who are you, sir?

MR. HSU: I'm Yung Hsu.

THE COURT: You better come in.

MR. HSU: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Because you're about to be sanctioned.

MR. HSU: Judge, the tunnel was just a standstill this morning.

THE COURT: No, you might as well come to the podium. You're about to be sanctioned, not because of traffic.

MR. HSU: Okay. Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: Regrettably you were not here to hear my recitation of the reasons why your request for relief —

MR. HSU: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: — is being denied.

MR. HSU: Okay.

THE COURT: But you can read the transcript because I'm not going to repeat it.

MR. HSU: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: I'm going to allow you and, to the extent you wish to explain — MR. HSU: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: — representatives of your client to attempt to get out from under what I view as a mountain of documentary evidence that buries you.

MR. HSU: Uh-huh. Judge, I represent To-Viet-Dao —

THE COURT: Does To-Viet-Dao own any property?

MR. HSU: According to the record of the property records, yes, it does.

THE COURT: Did you review before coming into court today the papers that were filed yesterday and delivered to my chambers in opposition to your request for relief?

MR. HSU: I reviewed the affirmation, yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And did you review Judge Brown's decision of July 5, 2007?

MR. HSU: Judge, I did not. I did not review that decision. The information that was given to me was based on information that was given to me by the client. The —

THE COURT: Okay, did you do any diligence of your own with respect to that information?

MR. HSU: I did not look at the order, yes.

THE COURT: Did you review any of the docket entries in the bankruptcy case what case is pending before Judge Winfield in the District of New Jersey?

MR. HSU: Judge, I did not.

THE COURT: Do you know — MR. HSU: But — THE COURT: — Mr. Truong?

MR. HSU: But I did — I did speak to Mr. Truong about them and he spoke to me about what those decisions were, stating that he was appealing the decisions of those orders. And he had filed his appeals.

THE COURT: He'd filed an appeal to —

MR. HSU: To the order —

THE COURT: — to what court?

MR. HSU: — for the sale, I believe.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. What appeal are you referring to?

MR. HSU: I'm referring to there were orders requesting for the sale of his property based upon vacating the transfers and he had appealed those orders is my belief.

THE COURT: Just so we're clear that we're talking about the right information, are you talking about an appeal of the orders that the bankruptcy court entered to the district court or are you talking about an appeal from the district court to the court of appeals for the Third Circuit?

MR. HSU: Judge, I don't have my file with me right now because I need to have it so I can give you precisely what which — THE COURT: Are you admitted to practice in the Southern District of New York?

MR. HSU: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: Do you regularly devote any portion of your —

MR. HSU: No, I don't.

THE COURT: — practice to bankruptcy work?

MR. HSU: No, I don't.

THE COURT: What is your area of concentration?

MR. HSU: I have a general practice.

THE COURT: Are you personally acquainted with the Truongs?

MR. HSU: I have — I know them, yes.

THE COURT: You — and how long have you known them?

MR. HSU: I've known Mr. Mac — Mr. Truong for a number of years.

THE COURT: And has Mr. Truong consulted with you professionally and as counsel in connection with any of the matters that are pending in the District of New Jersey with respect to the real property in question?

MR. HSU: He relayed to me that he was fighting the — he — there was the bankruptcy proceeding that they had right at this point in New Jersey. They were against his personal assets and that this — he asked me to represent To-Viet-Dao based upon To-Viet-Dao being the record owner at this point of the property in question.

THE COURT: Did he consult with you before he commenced the Chapter 13 that was assigned to me in March of 2007?

MR. HSU: No. I came in after I think the first time was when, Judge, you ordered the conversion of the case.

THE COURT: To Chapter 11.

MR. HSU: Yes. That was the first time.

THE COURT: Okay, well, I've been doing most of the talking here and I'm going to stop. You're now here and you have an opportunity to be heard as to why you believe you are entitled to the relief that you are seeking on behalf of your client, and the trustee and the trustee's counsel, having the benefit of having been here on time —

MR. HSU: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: — has heard what I had to say about this before your arrival.

MR. HSU: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: To some extent, they have the advantage of what I've already said on the record, but what I've —

MR. HSU: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: — said on the record is simply a recitation of material that's in the public record —

MR. HSU: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: — that was furnished to me for the first time late in the day yesterday.

MR. HSU: Judge —

THE COURT: So why don't you —

MR. HSU: — may I —

THE COURT: — if you are — if you are planning to continue to press your request for relief, this is your opportunity to do that. You can also give consideration to withdrawing the request with prejudice —

MR. HSU: May I speak with the —

THE COURT: — and dismissing the Chapter 11 case as a case that has no merit that was apparently commenced under Chapter 13 in bad faith at a time when the parties who commenced the case had actual knowledge of orders that the bankruptcy court in the District of New Jersey that had stripped this straw entity of any arguable interest in the real property. And I suggest that you take — that we all take about a 10-minute break —

MR. HSU: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: — so that you can confer with your client —

MR. HSU: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: — consider how you wish to proceed, and I'm putting you on notice now that your license is in jeopardy as a result of this.

MR. HSU: Yes, Judge.

MR. HONIG: Your Honor, before we recess, may I just refer counsel to Exhibit M to the certification which was filed yesterday by Mr. Kartzman in which he attaches copies of letters which were directed to counsel before the filing of the pleadings which were presented to the Court last week.

THE COURT: Right. I understand. I've seen that. He can take a look at it.

Rule 9011 which incorporates Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Procedure into bankruptcy practice are applicable here and a representative — actually two representatives of the Office of the United States Trustee are here. I'm pleased they're here to monitor this because this is about as clear a case of bankruptcy abuse that I have ever seen and it's also a case in which I believe you have tread so far over the line of professional misconduct that you could lose your right to practice in the district court. You have demonstrated —

MR. HSU: Judge, I —

THE COURT: — a lack of candor that is shocking.

MR. HSU: Judge, I —

THE COURT: We're adjourn for 10 minutes.

MR. HSU: Okay.

(Recess taken at 10:58 a.m.) (Proceedings resume at 11:21 a.m.)

THE COURT: Please be seated.

Where do we stand?

MR. HSU: Judge, after conferring with my client and —

THE COURT: Please speak up.

MR. HSU: After conferring with the client and with the trustee and — we'd like to ask for your leave, Your Honor, to withdraw the case.

THE COURT: Withdraw the case?

MR. HSU: Yes.

THE COURT: So you'll be voluntarily dismissing the Chapter 11 case?

MR. HSU: That's right, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That's fine.

I'd like to hear from the U.S. Trustee.

MR. VELEZ-RIVERA: I'll address the Court from here, Your Honor. Andrew Velez-Rivera.

Your Honor, we've conferred with counsel and the debtor has agreed subject to Your Honor's approval for a couple of additional protections in the dismissal order. We would like, and counsel has agreed, to have the case dismissed, number one, with prejudice and then secondly with a bar to the refiling of a bankruptcy case by this debtor applicable nationwide, if Your Honor agrees.

THE COURT: That's perfectly agreeable. I'd like to hear from the Chapter 7 trustee in the Mac Truong and Maryse Mac Truong cases.

MR. KARTZMAN: Your Honor —

THE COURT: Is that acceptable to you?

MR. KARTZMAN: That particular relief is acceptable, Your Honor, not as a settlement of anything that I'm giving in return. That was — terms of that order were arranged between U.S. Trustee's Office and Mr. Hsu.

When Your Honor thinks it's appropriate, I'd like to add a couple of — or emphasize a couple of things that are in the record with regard to Mr. Hsu's knowledge of the facts and with regard to —

THE COURT: This is a good time to do that.

MR. KARTZMAN: Your Honor, there —

THE COURT: Why don't you come to the podium.

It'll —

MR. KARTZMAN: Thank you.

THE COURT: — be easier for me to both hear you and see you.

MR. KARTZMAN: Your Honor, there's a May 24th certification filed in the bankruptcy court in which I am trustee and I mention it in Paragraph 16 of the certification that was filed in this case and which I signed where I indicate the Truongs knew the title had revested them and was subject to administration despite this request for the order to show cause which states clearly to the contrary. And I quote:

"On or about December 7, 2006, this court granted Trustee Steven P. Kartzman's motions for an order voiding To-Viet-Dao, LLP's title to said property and reverting it to us, granting the trustee authority to administer said property under 11 U.S.C. 704."

That's in a May 2007 certification. This affirmation presented Your Honor on July 13th is well after that, and the affirmation is directly contrary to that wherein they indicate that — state, Your Honor, "Well, there were orders entered that granted Mr. Kartzman possession, but not title."

There were no less than three — I'll say three. I think there were four summary judgment orders which — the first summary judgment order which avoided the transfer. Then there was supplemental order that extended the relief to MtEars which I believe to be a sham entity and to To-Viet-Dao which I also believe to be a sham entity. Then there were additional supplemental orders with injunctive relief, another order where we added a lot and block so that the Bergen County Clerk would record it. All of these orders were served on the Truongs, naturally. There's no doubt that the Truongs knew exactly what the state of affairs was when they presented this to Your Honor.

Mr. Hsu I am not as familiar with. I've been litigating the adversary proceeding with the Truongs for close to four years. Mr. Hsu apparently has entered the picture more recently. However, Mr. Hsu wrote to me on May 14th to advise me of the stay, and I believe we've submitted those letters as exhibits. If we haven't, we can supplement the record. Mr. Hsu's address was 325 Broadway, Suite 401, New York, New York, and the 325 Broadway address is the same address as Mac Truong and — excuse me, Your Honor.

(Pause in proceedings.)

MR. KARTZMAN: To-Viet-Dao letterhead, Your Honor, indicates 325 Broadway, Suite 200. Mac Truong uses an address of 325 Broadway and Jung Hsu letter to me uses an address 325 Broadway, Suite 401.

On May 22nd, 2007 by Federal Express, I sent to Mr. Hsu a letter which is annexed as Exhibit M — that's course well in advance of the July 13th submission to Your Honor — wherein I indicate:

In that you are an attorney at law, there are serious consequences for recklessly or intentionally making false assertions of facts. In your letter, you make two false statements that follows."

First one Mr. Hsu indicates I'm a creditor of To-Viet-Dao as trustee which I am not, and the second one that — and I quote "That 327 Demott is property the To-Viet-Dao estate."

"Again this is false. The transfer To-Viet-Dao was avoided on December 7th, 2006 and remains avoided, and an order to that effect was recorded with the county recording office. I am confident that from even a cursory review of the docket in the Truongs' Chapter 7 case you would know the above."

I went on with other matters. Mr. Hsu has already written to the realtor who has this property listed for sale, Caldwell Banker Realtor, and threatened her with sanctions for intentional violation of stay on more than one occasion. There's a number of letters. I doubt I've attached them all in the time span we had. I can submit them to the Court.

My belief, Your Honor, it's clear that the Truongs knew exactly what the state of affairs was and that Mr. Hsu either knew or should have known what the state of affairs was.

The other thing I wanted to point out, Your Honor, based on my best recollection, Mac Truong's statement, Your Honor, that he was suspended is not accurate. Mac Truong was first suspended and later disbarred by the appellate division. There's a decision on it. If the Court needs it, I'm sure I can find it in my files at the office.

Your Honor has all of the rest of the facts and all of the rest of the exhibits. As Your Honor can tell, I am frustrated. I have litigated this adversary with the Truongs in the bankruptcy court for close to three years. Mr. Honig's firm has litigated in the — before the U.S. District Court in the District of New Jersey on the dozens of orders that have been appealed from. There have been appeals to the Third Circuit.

I am frustrated because I take my duties as a trustee seriously and the Truongs' behavior of — and repeated pattern of vexatious litigation both in the bankruptcy court in New Jersey and in prior courts, in the Judge Stein's opinion that I think we cited Your Honor to wherein he recites a history in the Southern District, numerous other instances. It's caused such a burden on the judicial system and has caused such a burden on this estate that we're — our administrative expenses are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars simply to avoid a fraudulent transfer of a house, and the creditors of this estate are being, you know, deprived of a full dividend at the end of the day because of that.

Your Honor, I want to thank you very much, you know, for your time today and it is apparent that Your Honor thoroughly read the papers here and understands the history of this case and I appreciate that very much.

THE COURT: Thank you. I just have one question for you. Your letter brief concludes on Page 7 with the statement:

"Furthermore, if the Court deems it just and proper, the trustee request that TVD be sanctioned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1927 for filing a false affirmation and that the trustee be awarded fees and costs in connection with responding to the OSC" — which means the order to show cause — "and appearing before the Court following the filing of an affidavit of services."

I want to be clear as to whether or not you are going to continue to pursue that reserved right, whether or not the dismissal of this case should provide for retained jurisdiction in order for that right to be exercised here, whether you intend to pursue such claim separately or at least reserve the right to do so, which is of course fine with me. I don't care where you do it if you choose to do it. But I simply am asking that question so that the order that's being promulgated with the assistance of the Office the United States Trustee can at least accommodate that request.

(Counsel confer.)

MR. KARTZMAN: Excuse me, Your Honor. If Your Honor wouldn't mind retaining jurisdiction as to that in the event that we'decide to pursue that, that would be appreciated.

THE COURT: I'm prepared to retain jurisdiction to the extent that there is a timely request for sanctions against To-Viet-Dao, which would seem to be a pointless effort because To-Viet-Dao is an enterprise that has no assets, or against counsel for To-Viet-Dao to the extent that there's a provable claim under Bankruptcy Rule 7011 or other appropriate rules.

MR. KARTZMAN: Your Honor, might I also point out before I forget just so the record's clear, I'm not admitted in the Southern District, Mr. Honig is, and I take it I'm speaking today at Your Honor's allowance pro hac.

THE COURT: You're deemed to be admitted pro hac vice for purposes of this hearing.

MR. KARTZMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there anything more?

MR. VELEZ-RIVERA: Judge —

THE COURT: What's the timing incidently for the voluntary dismissal with appropriate conditions that include an injunction against further filings anywhere in the United States?

MR. VELEZ-RIVERA: I could prepare an order and have it to Your Honor by the end of the day.

THE COURT: Fine.

MR. HONIG: Your Honor, will that order include that

the application which has been submitted in connection with the order to show cause is also withdrawn?

MR. VELEZ-RIVERA: We can do that.

MR. HONIG: So we make it clear. Thank you.

THE COURT: Fine. We're adjourned.

MR. HONIG: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. KARTZMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Proceedings concluded at 11:33 a.m.)

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of our knowledge and ability.

Exhibit 5

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE: Case No. 07-12194 (JMP) MAC TRUONG, Chapter 13 Debtor. Manhattan, New York Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:10 a.m. TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE JAMES M. PECK UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Debtor: Mac Truong, Pro Se 325 Broadway New York, New York 10007 For the U.S. Trustee: Andrew D. Velez-Rivera, Esq. Serene K. Nakano, Esq. OFFICE OF THE U.S. TRUSTEE 33 Whitehall Street, 21st Floor New York, New York 10004 For Chapter 13 Trustee, Jodi Kava, Esq. Jeffrey L. Sapir: 399 Knollwood Road, Suite 102 (Via Telephone) White Plains, NY 10603 Chapter 7 Trustee: Steven P. Kartzman, Esq. (Via Telephone) MELLINGER SANDERS KARTZMAN, LLC 101 Gibraltar Drive, Suite 2F Morris Plains, NJ 07950 Audio Operator: Electronically Recorded by Karen Cappiello, ECRO Transcription Company: Rand Transcript Service 80 Broad Street, Fifth Floor New York, New York 10004 (212) 504-2919 www.randtranscript.com Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording, transcript produced by transcription service.

(Proceedings commence at 9:10 a.m.)

THE COURT: Please be seated.

This is the case status conference on the Mac Truong case. I understand there are some appearances by telephone. Let me just take those for record purposes.

MS. KAVA: Morning, Your Honor. This is Jodi Kava for Jeffrey Sapir, Chapter 13 Trustee.

MR. KARTZMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Steven Kartzman, Mellinger Sanders Kartzman, Mac Truong and Maryse Mac Truong, Trustee in the District of New Jersey. Your Honor, I request permission to speak pro hac vice today.

THE COURT: That's fine.

MR. VELEZ-RIVERA: Andrew Velez-Rivera for the United States Trustee.

MS. NAKANO: Serene Nakano also for the United States Trustee.

THE COURT: I will note that it's about 10 minutes past nine in the morning. This status conference was called for nine a.m. Mr. Truong is not present in the courtroom. I don't know if he's in transit or if he's in fact choosing not to appear today.

Nonetheless, this status conference is going to proceed. I have received in response to the notice of status conference, which I issued by order on Friday of this past week, a written submission from Mr. Kartzman and his law firm. This submission consists of a five-page letter brief and a number of attached exhibits.

I have also received from Mr. Truong several pleadings relating to this Chapter 13 case. One of which is a notice of motion which was filed on July 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1412, seeking an order transferring the Chapter 7 proceedings in New Jersey under the caption In re Mac Truonq and Maryse Mac Truong, Docket Number 03-40283, from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey to the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

This motion for change of venue and consolidation is not properly before me today. I will note, however, that under Rule 1014(b) of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the motion filed by Mr. Truong relating to the transfer of the Chapter 7 case from New Jersey to the Southern District of New York has been filed improperly in this district.

Under Rule 1014(b), where there are two pending cases under Title 11 of the United States Code, the proper procedure is to seek a change of venue and transfer in the court that first had jurisdiction of the debtor. In this instance, the court that first had jurisdiction is the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey.

In pertinent part, Rule 1014(b) provides:

"If petitions commencing cases under the Code are filed in different districts by or against the same debtor on motion filed in the district in which the petition filed first is pending and after hearing on notice to the petitioners, the United States Trustee, and other entities as directed by the court, the court may determine in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties the district or districts in which the case or cases should proceed."

To the best of my knowledge based upon a current review of the docket in the bankruptcy case which is pending before Judge Winfield in the District of New Jersey, and I have a docket that was printed as of 7/23/2007, there is no motion pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1014(b) now pending in the District of New Jersey. Based upon our review of the PACER system, the last docket entry in that bankruptcy case is 7/17/2007. It's Docket Entry 254.

I would note having checked the docket that the docket in the Chapter 7 case before Judge Winfield is quite extensive. The case was filed on September 15, 2003 and today consists of 30 pages of docket entries.

Because no motion for change of venue has been filed in the District of New Jersey which is the proper court for hearing such matters, it's at least the position of this Court that there is no stay in effect relating to the determination of proper venue in this court. I bring this up because the last sentence of Rule 1014(b) provides:

"Except as otherwise ordered by the court in the district in which the petition filed first is pending, the proceedings on the other petitions shall be stayed by the courts in which they have been filed until the determination is made."

Because no such request has been made in the District of New Jersey, it's at least my position that this last sentence of Rule 1014 is inapplicable.

I'll also note that as I was making the last statement regarding the final sentence of Rule 1014(b), Mr. Truong walked into the courtroom. It's now approximately 20 minutes past nine.

Mr. Truong, if you want to step forward, you're certainly free to do that.

MR. TRUONG: Yes, Your Honor.

Can I address the Court, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You can sit down.

MR. TRUONG: Because they told me to come in at 9:30, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't believe that's correct because the order that was entered provided for a nine a.m. appearance and my understanding is that my courtroom deputy spoke with you on Friday and informed you of a nine a.m. appearance. If there has been a misunderstanding, that's of no particular present concern because you're here and the proceeding was delayed by approximately 10 minutes awaiting your arrival. The only thing that you missed was my general recitation of the background, and now that you're here, you can fully participate.

The one thing that you missed was my references to Bankruptcy Rule 1014 which deals with the proper procedure for dealing with venue in situations where there are two pending cases involving the same debtor. This status conference was called by me in a manner that I will quickly acknowledge as somewhat unusual because of some issues that arose last week, and I want the record to be very clear on this.

Last week on July 18, I conducted a hearing in the Chapter 11 case filed by an affiliate of Mr. Truong. That case was voluntarily dismissed following a hearing, the record of which can be referred to and I will not repeat for these purposes.

That afternoon, the U.S. Trustee delivered to my chambers a form of order which provided for the dismissal of the Chapter 11 case, and which also provided for a filing injunction for a one year period.

The next day on July 19, I learned that Mac Truong filed in this court a Chapter 13 case for himself individually and that case was assigned to me. When I learned of the Chapter 13 filing, I became concerned that the Chapter 13 represented a potential abuse of the bankruptcy process, might not have been filed in good faith, and might have been filed for the express purpose of frustrating orders of both the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court for the District of New Jersey.

For that reason, on Friday — excuse me, Friday, July 20, I issued an order, on my own, scheduling a status conference for this morning. The reason that I picked today and deemed this to be an emergency is that in papers previously filed in the Chapter 11 case I learned that today, July 24, 2007, is a date that had been identified by Mr. Kartzman and by the U.S. Marshal Service for the District of New Jersey as the deadline for eviction of Mr. Truong and his wife from their home at 327 Demott Avenue in Teaneck, New Jersey.

I scheduled today's status conference for July 24 so that, to the greatest extent possible, the Chapter 13 case that appears at first blush to have been filed abusively does not interfere with the appropriate judicial processes in the District of New Jersey.

That having been said, Mr. Truong, this is your opportunity to appear and to present such testimony or evidence as you may have to support a finding that this case is an otherwise good faith bankruptcy filing. I will note, however, that you have a very heavy burden in persuading me that this is anything other than a litigation tactic.

One reason that you have such a heavy burden is that I have read, with interest, the decision of Judge Winfield from March 5th of 2007 in which Judge Winfield considered a motion filed by you and your wife under Section 706 of the Bankruptcy Code to convert your Chapter 7 case to Chapter 13 cases, and I note that Judge Winfield denied that request, finding, among other things, that the request to transfer from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 was not in good faith.

Under the circumstances, the current filing for Chapter 13 relief in this court would appear to be an attempt by you to forum shop and to obtain a result that you could not obtain in the court that has been handling this matter since 2003.

This is your opportunity to say what you have to say, but given your status as a lawyer who has been both disbarred by the State of New York and suspended from practice in the federal courts in the Second Circuit and in the Southern District of New York in particular, I am unable to accept your representations as true.

Therefore, whatever you have to tell me which is factual in nature, as opposed to argument, you will need to testify to as a sworn witness. If you don't wish to provide testimony, that's your privilege. I leave that up to you. But if you wish to present argument, you can do that without being sworn.

Do you wish to say something?

MR. TRUONG: I wish to address the Court fully and I would need at least about —

THE COURT: Why don't you come —

MR. TRUONG: — 15 minutes —

THE COURT: — to the podium so that your words can be fully recorded —

MR. TRUONG: Yes, Your Honor. I —

THE COURT: — by the court reporter.

MR. TRUONG: I have listen to the Court and at the end I find out that the Court is absolutely just and fair and give me this opportunity which seem to be very difficult for me to, let's say, show why my filing for Chapter 13 is absolutely in good faith and not bad faith.

THE COURT: Explain to me why you assert under the circumstances that I have recited to you that this Chapter 13 that was filed the day after dismissal of the Chapter 11 case, which was filed by you originally as a Chapter 13 case in March of this year and converted to Chapter 11 all for purposes of protecting the home located at 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey — please explain why the filing for Chapter 13, also without a credit counseling certificate on that day, was in good faith.

MR. TRUONG: It is in good faith, Your Honor. First, even though my application to convert first my Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 was dismiss by Judge Winfield, it is base on the main fact that according to Mr. Kartzman, at that time, we had to assess the amount of my debts at the original filing and which at that time is above $270,000 and because of that I don't qualify for Chapter 13. That exactly that if you read that decision, you will see that is major factor.

And the second factor the judge said at that time is first you don't qualify because your debt originally was too much, and then it's because you try just to avoid Mr. Kartzman's filing fees; administration fee. So it's in that phrase that exactly in that order, Your Honor.

So now, at this juncture, it's completely different because after the judge make that decision, I realize that I had to amend my Schedule C, E and F to show that I have no debt because actually, the debt I owe in 2003 were already settle. And the reason why I file for the Chapter 7 first in September 2003 was because I got a judgment in the amount of $356,000 from a former landlord and who sue me — let's say frivolously —

THE COURT: That is Broadwhite.

MR. TRUONG: That's correct, Your Honor. And that because of that I was disbarred, too. And right now — well that's too long.

THE COURT: There are any —

MR. TRUONG: I would go to that.

THE COURT: — number of courts that have already by final order, both New York state courts and federal courts, that have found you to be a vexatious litigant who has a pattern of filing false and multiple pleadings that burden the court that lack merit and that have resulted in sanctions imposed against you, including the loss of the privilege to be a lawyer in this state. Those are fairly serious consequences all arising out of the Broadwhite dispute.

MR. TRUONG: That part is correct, Your Honor, and that's why I had to mention that the filing of Broadwhite was vacated by the Third Circuit Court before and after I was disbar. And the issue why I was disbar because of that said conduct was to now at the Second Circuit Court on a hearing on Bong (phonetic), and I have a motion that is about 200 pages and I would be very happy to submit a copy of that to Your Honor.

THE COURT: It's not —

MR. TRUONG: That —

THE COURT: — relevant to the matter —

MR. TRUONG: I understand that. So right —

THE COURT: — which is before me today.

MR. TRUONG: — now the bottom line is this: Anyway, because of that $256,000 judgment I file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy because I also lost the three — four million and a half dollar to Schwab because of their fraudulent conduct and the case now also is pending in the New York state court and it's very much — but —

THE COURT: Mr. Truong, let —

MR. TRUONG: — but bottom line let —

THE COURT: Mr. —

MR. TRUONG: — let me say the bottom line —

THE COURT: Mr. Truong —

MR. TRUONG: — then, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Truong, let me break in and try to control this a little bit. The issue is not what happened in the past, the issue is what you're doing now —

MR. TRUONG: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: — and why you filed on July 20th for Chapter 13 relief, the day after dismissal of the To-Viet-Dao Chapter 11 case. The conclusion that I draw from the timing and the circumstances, particularly since the To-Viet-Dao hearing that took place on the 18th involved a request for relief from Mr. Kartzman's execution of the judgments obtained in New Jersey, that the Chapter 13 filing on the 19th was especially designed to stop that action. Is that correct?

MR. TRUONG: Your Honor —

THE COURT: Just answer me. Is that correct?

MR. TRUONG: That is correct and I'm entitle to it. That's the point, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, before we determine what you are entitled to —

MR. TRUONG: Yes.

THE COURT: — I'm just trying to understand the basic facts. Is it correct that the Chapter 13 filed in this case on July 19th, 2007 was filed for the express purpose of obtaining an automatic stay to prevent Mr. Kartzman from executing on the judgments against you entered by Judge Winfield and affirmed by Judge Brown?

MR. TRUONG: That is correct, Your Honor, because that judgment by Judge Winfield only gave to Mr. Kartzman not an execution of anything, but only the entry into to the premises so that he can sell it. And I'm entitle to file for Chapter 13 and is exactly why the Chapter 13 has been conceive by Congress and to give to people like me.

So first I had to explain why I was not entitle to the Chapter 13 conversion by Judge Winfield. It's because at that time the judge say that I owe too much debt originally. But then after the judge say that, I file amended E and F to show that I don't owe it because I had settle with Broadwhite entirely in July 2004, Your Honor. And Broadwhite absolutely dismiss every things against me, including even the adversary proceeding that Mr. Kartzman substitute into and to take.

And that fact Mr. Kartzman himself was wrong because I move — I appeal from that. First he was entitle to substitute himself into the adversary proceeding by Broadwhite to sue me for fraudulent transfer and Judge Winfield allow him to do that. I appeal and I won on the Third Circuit Court. The Third Circuit Court say that you can start a brand new adversary proceeding against them if you wish, but this case that was start by Broadwhite belong to Broadwhite and therefore if Broadwhite dismiss it, it's over. You do whatever you want to do. And that is clearly said and I can send it to the Court that order from Third Circuit Court.

Notwithstanding, Mr. Kartzman ignore that by just saying that the Third Circuit Court never say that, Judge, and the judge who know that the court say that never make a determination on that. And I even move Judge Winfield for giving collateral estoppel effort to the Third Circuit Court case by saying that the adversary proceeding for you to sue him for fraudulent transfer has been dismiss by Broadwhite.

THE COURT: Mr. Truong —

MR. TRUONG: So —

THE COURT: — we're going to —

MR. TRUONG: So right now, Your Honor —

THE COURT: — we're — Mr. Truong, I'm —

MR. TRUONG: Yes.

THE COURT: — I'm breaking in because what I'm missing here is the relevance to your current statement between your current statement and what we're dealing with today. And I just had a few questions and I would like you to answer the questions directly. But before you answer them, I would like you to take an oath because I have reason to question your credibility.

MR. TRUONG: I —

MAC TRUONG, DEBTOR, SWORN

THE COURT: All right. Do you have any current regular income?

MR. TRUONG: Right now?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. TRUONG: My wife have regular income —

THE COURT: No, I'm talking about you. Do you —

MR. TRUONG: Me? I have —

THE COURT: — currently have —

MR. TRUONG: I have —

THE COURT: — any regular income?

MR. TRUONG: I do not have a big regular income, Your Honor, because I am pro se and I have to do interpretation for the court to make some money and since I cannot practice law except in the Second Circuit, so — and I don't have that many case in the Second Circuit where I still can practice law, I cannot make too much money. However, I'm entitle to the Chapter 13 because I don't —

THE COURT: Well, I'm just —

MR. TRUONG: — have any debt, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm not asking for what you're entitled to, I'm asking whether or not you make money.

MR. TRUONG: I make limited money, but my money can also come from my wife and my children and I can survive, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. You have a letterhead that lists 325 Broadway, New York, New York 10007 as your address.

MR. TRUONG: That's correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is that your address in Manhattan?

MR. TRUONG: Yes.

THE COURT: What activities are conducted from that location?

MR. TRUONG: That's my business and I write and also I make invention and right now also I do a lot of translation for people and to make money, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay, so what is the —

MR. TRUONG: And especially I take care of a lot of my personal cases.

THE COURT: You take care of a lot of your personal cases from there?

MR. TRUONG: Yes.

THE COURT: Are you talking about cases in which you're a party, such as —

MR. TRUONG: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: — this one?

MR. TRUONG: Yes.

THE COURT: And did you file in the bankruptcy court in New Jersey this month an application to proceed in forma pauperis?

MR. TRUONG: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And in that form — and I have a copy of it — it states, "In the past 12 months, have you received any money from any of the following sources" and it lists business profession or other self-employment and the answer was no.

Is it your position that in the last 12 months you have had no income or that you've had some income?

MR. TRUONG: I had some income about $400 a month only, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Your wife did not file for Chapter 13 relief with you. Are you able to tell me why?

MR. TRUONG: Yes, Your Honor. Because she was so intimidated by Mr. Kartzman and she was so frustrated by this court appearance and she's so distressed that she doesn't want to do anything anymore, Your Honor.

THE COURT: When you filed the Chapter 13 case, you knew that Judge Winfield had already denied your request to convert your Chapter 7 case to Chapter 13 in the District of New Jersey. Is that correct?

MR. TRUONG: Absolutely, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And when you filed for Chapter 13 relief in the Southern District of New York, you knew that there was currently pending a Chapter 7 case involving you and your wife in the District of New Jersey. Is that correct?

MR. TRUONG: It was not close; however, I was — okay, I was granted a discharge on the 18 of February 2004, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, I didn't understand your last response. Did you know —

MR. TRUONG: I got the discharge —

THE COURT: Did you know or did you not know at the time that you filed the Chapter 13 case on July 19, 2007 in this court that there was currently pending an active Chapter 7 case involving you as the Chapter 7 debtor in the District of New Jersey?

MR. TRUONG: That depend on how you call it pending. I know that I file for Chapter 7 —

THE COURT: And you know the case has —

MR. TRUONG: — and I —

THE COURT: — not be closed.

MR. TRUONG: Not close, yes.

THE COURT: Right. And it's also true that you filed with me a paper that I received yesterday on July 23rd, which is a notice of motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1412, for an order transferring for consolidation and efficient administration the Chapter 7 case from New Jersey from New Jersey to the Southern District of New York, correct?

MR. TRUONG: Yes, Your Honor. Yes.

THE COURT: So at the time you filed that motion you understood that there was a currently pending Chapter 7 case in New Jersey?

MR. TRUONG: I assume that it is not close and therefore it's still pending. Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And you reviewed Bankruptcy Rule 1014?

MR. TRUONG: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Bankruptcy Rule 1014 is the rule applicable to the dismissal and transfer of cases involving the same debtor that are filed in different courts. It's a rule which is designed, among other things, to implement 28 U.S.C. Section 1412. Is it correct that when you filed the motion to change venue, you did not refer to Rule 1014?

MR. TRUONG: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: When you were walking in late, I was in the process of reading into the record a section of Rule 1014(b) that makes clear that the proper district in which a motion for change of venue is to be filed under this rule is the district where the bankruptcy case was first filed. This status conference today is not designed to adjudicate your motion for change of venue which is currently listed for hearing on August 14. At least that's the date that was put in the notice. I don't know if that's a date which you obtained from my courtroom deputy or if you simply selected that date yourself. But according to the notice of motion, it says August 14.

It's not being heard now. But I am considering today as part of my scheduling of today's status conference issues relating to proper jurisdiction and venue. Because that is a subject for consideration today, I would like you to explain why you believe that the Southern District of New York is a proper venue for considering matters relating to 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey.

MR. TRUONG: It's because I'm a resident of New York also for more than six months and I have my principal office and business in New York for more than 25 years next to this court in Broadway, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Now, where do you sleep at night?

MR. TRUONG: I sleep at night mostly in New Jersey, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you sleep in the home located at 327 Demott Avenue in Teaneck?

MR. TRUONG: Most of time, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. And do you vote in elections in the United States?

MR. TRUONG: In the past, I vote in New Jersey, but I cannot —

THE COURT: My question is do you vote in elections in the United States. That's a yes —

MR. TRUONG: Yes.

THE COURT: — or no.

MR. TRUONG: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And in what jurisdiction do you vote?

MR. TRUONG: Until more than six months ago, I vote in New Jersey.

THE COURT: Have you obtained an apartment or a dwelling residence in Manhattan?

MR. TRUONG: I have my office where I can even sleep if that's what I choose, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I take it the only connection that you have to Manhattan is your office location on Broadway. Is that correct?

MR. TRUONG: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Those are the only questions I have for you right now, and I've been doing a lot of the talking and you've been doing a lot of the talking, but there are two individuals who are participating by telephone and there are representatives of the Office of the United States Trustee who are present in court.

Mr. Kartzman, I appreciate your making time for this notwithstanding the fact that I understand you had another court appearance today in New Jersey. Would you please, if you wish, make whatever comments you believe to be appropriate to this question at this time?

MR. KARTZMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. I view this Chapter 13 case, Your Honor, as nothing more than an impermissible collateral attack on the orders that were entered by the Bankruptcy Court and United States District Court New Jersey. Your Honor has copies of most of those orders in connection with the submission that we made in the recently dismissed Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of To-Viet-Dao, which was Case Number 07-10696, before Your Honor.

Believe that this Chapter 13 case is not filed in good faith, Your Honor. It was not filed as a means to readjust debt, it was filed as a means to delay the debtor's eviction. I think that's abundantly clear from the motion that Mr. Truong has filed and also abundantly clear from the letters that we've annexed as Exhibit A to letter brief that was filed yesterday.

The only debt listed by Mr. Truong in this petition is a mortgage debt he listed at approximately $14,000 to HSBC. I know for a fact, Your Honor, that that is a mortgage debt against the real estate at 327 Demott Avenue. It is a debt that will be paid on the sale of the property when that occurs.

I don't — we've also attached as Exhibit A a sampling of some of the letters that I received and that the U.S. Marshal's Service received this past Friday from Mr. Truong we've characterized as a letter writing campaign. The express purpose of which was to halt Mr. Truong's eviction. There were I believe about four such letters on Friday and there was an additional letter received yesterday.

testified is the fact that he has an office in New York. I have no knowledge as to what he does in the office in New York. His IFP application recites that the space is sublet. I don't know whether he also has the opportunity to occupy the space. That is the only connection to New York.

We've attached as Exhibit D a copy of that in forma pauperis application which provides Your Honor with a current snapshot of the debtor's assets. We also attached a copy of the trustee's certification in support of the motion for summary judgment as Exhibit C which goes into some detail as to debtor's assets. I believe it's pretty clear that both at the time of the filing of that Chapter 7 case and now, the debtor's principal asset was the residential asset subject to administration in the Chapter 7 case.

As Your Honor noted in examination, in answer to the question on the in forma pauperis application, debtor states he had no business profession or other self-employment income for the past 12 months.

As of the petition date, Your Honor, the debtor had no interest in property subject to the automatic stay invested in his bankruptcy estate. Not only have court orders been entered, three of four of them, which indicate that and indicate that that property is subject to administration by the Chapter 7 trustee, Judge Winfield has written letters to the debtor to make abundantly and absolutely clear that that property is property of the Chapter 7 estate and subject to administration.

If the debtor had any type of possessory interest, Your Honor, it was terminated by the order to vacate that was entered on February 15th, 2007, and therefore, as of this petition date last week, the debtor lacked any possessory interest in the property.

We have the single estate rule, Your Honor, with regard to the fact — the legal conclusion that the stay is inapplicable.

Therefore, Your Honor, the trustee submits this Chapter 13 case should be dismissed with prejudice with a nationwide bar against refiling against both Mac Truong and Maryse Mac Truong in light of her false affirmation in the TVD bankruptcy case, and that the Court should retain jurisdiction to adjudicate a timely application for sanctions against this debtor pursuant to Title 28 United States Code Section 1927.

Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Just one question. What's the current status of efforts within the District of New Jersey to execute on the property located at 327 Demott Avenue? My understanding from other pleadings filed in the To-Viet-Dao bankruptcy case was that today was a deadline for eviction.

MR. KARTZMAN: Your Honor, the order that was entered on February 15th, 2007 gave the debtors — believe it was about 45 days. That was up on April 1st of 2007. I then, in the month of July, wrote to the debtors and informed them that they had overstayed and that the deadline to leave is July 23 at five p.m., which was yesterday of course, and the status of the eviction is that as soon as the marshal can arrange to physically go to the premises, that anyone in occupancy will be removed pursuant to that order and that any possessions left in that property will be removed pursuant to that order.

THE COURT: Is it your legal position, Mr. Kartzman, that the automatic stay arising as a result of the filing of this Chapter 13 case does not extend to the property at 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey?

MR. KARTZMAN: Absolutely, Your Honor. This debtor held title to the property prior to my setting aside in the adversary proceeding the conveyances to Silvaine Decrouy, Hugh Mac Truong, Mt-Ears, and ultimately To-Viet-Dao titles revested in the Truongs subject to my administration. Truongs have nothing in terms of any type of legal interest and as I — I theorized on behalf of the Truongs that if they had any interest, it was a possessory interest and that possessory interest was terminated by the order that was entered on February 15th, 2007. And Judge Winfield has, you know, included very specific language in summary judgment orders that that property is property estate and subject to administration.

THE COURT: Okay. I'd like to hear from the U.S. Trustee's Office if the representatives of the U.S. Trustee have anything to add.

MR. TRUONG: Can I say something, Your Honor?

THE COURT: No, I'm — actually, you can say something after I'm —

MR. TRUONG: Yes.

THE COURT: — I'm done hearing from Mr. Rivera.

MR. VELEZ-RIVERA: Your Honor, thank you for the opportunity. Andrew Velez-Rivera for the United States Trustee.

THE COURT: Mr. Truong, you can sit down while others are speaking. It's really okay to sit.

MR. VELEZ-RIVERA: Just a couple of points, Your Honor, because the record seems to be well-developed at this point. We, too, would echo the request of the Chapter 11 — Chapter 7 trustee, I should say, for the dismissal of the case with prejudice yet again with a bar to refiling applicable to both Mr, and Mrs. Truong. We believe there is statutory authority for the bar to refiling in the Second Circuit based on the Cass (phonetic) case, and we believe it's also applicable against Mrs. Truong, even though she's not a debtor in this case, because she is a debtor in a currently existing case in New Jersey, as well as being the general partner of To-Viet-Dao, the LLC case that was before Your Honor the other day.

We would also ask, however, for more relief than we asked, Your Honor, last week. I'm going to ask you for another bell and another whistle, Your Honor.

In my experience in another U.S. Trustee office — and I can't say I've done it here in New York because the opportunity hasn't come up, but today's the day — judges enter orders providing for springing sanctions such that if a debtor violates a bar order akin to the one I'm asking for you now, sanctions would be imposed in a certain amount and that neither without — if the debtor re-files the case without leave of court, that would be Your Honor, sanctions would spring automatically in the new case and those sanctions would not be dischargeable in the subject case, and neither would the debts in this case be dischargeable in the future case. We would ask for that to be entered today.

I would also note that our review of the docket reveals that the debtor hasn't complied with one of the basics that apply now under the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code. We don't have a credit counseling certificate in the case, Your Honor. Those are further grounds for dismissing the case. In addition, the debtor hasn't moved for an extension of time to file one.

THE COURT: Well actually, I have received a motion by this debtor for an excuse of the requirement to file credit counseling.

MR. VELEZ-RIVERA: We weren't aware of that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: That motion, which is not presently before me, which I saw was filed yesterday, argues that because of the urgency associated with the foreclosure or eviction in New Jersey of the 327 Demott Avenue premises that there was no time to obtain credit counseling. It was filed as a motion that, among other things, repeated many of the statements made in the motion filed by this debtor relating to venue.

In the ordinary Chapter 13 case, there is a standard form which is submitted to chambers seeking an extension of the time for filing a credit counseling certificate. Those forms ordinarily provide for the individual debtor who may be pro se to set forth the reasons that support a finding of exigent circumstances that would warrant a 30-day extension of the requirement for filing that certificate.

These requests are routinely either granted or denied. On occasion, these requests become the subject of a hearing on my regular Chapter 13 day. And as Miss Kava knows, and she's on the line listening to this hearing, as recently as last Thursday, I granted a request for an extension of the time, although it's an unusual circumstance for me to do that.

Based upon my review of the facts and circumstances of this Chapter 13 case, particularly since the disputes with the trustee that precipitated the filing have been ongoing for a number of years and particularly because Mr. Truong, although no longer permitted to practice law, was at one time a member of the Bar of the State of New York and continues to be on the rolls of admitted attorneys in the Second Circuit, a situation which I would hope will be corrected soon and that you will be stricken from the list of attorneys in the Second Circuit, Mr. Truong. But nonetheless, you are educated as a lawyer and as a result of your having filed numerous pleadings pro se in the bankruptcy cases that have involved you and your wife in the District of New Jersey, you are an unusually sophisticated pro se litigant and pro se debtor.

As a result, I have to conclude that you have been aware for some time of the requirement to obtain credit counseling if you were ever going to commence a case to be governed under the law that came into effect on October 17, 2005, and that the circumstances that you have set forth in your application to be excused from the requirement of credit counseling that applies to all debtors who seek relief under Chapter 13 — I find that your application for such relief is lacking in the requisite allegations of exigent circumstances to warrant being excused of the requirement for credit counseling and I am denying your application today, even though it is not before me today, so that you are aware that this is a ministerial act that courts routinely will exercise without a full hearing.

You, however, have had the extra added attraction of having had a full opportunity to appear and be heard at a time when you've also had an opportunity to hear from Mr. Kartzman and from the U.S. Trustee's Office regarding the concerns that they have as to this case, not only with respect to credit counseling, but as to this case being a somewhat shocking and extraordinary example of bankruptcy abuse.

The particular reason that I conclude that this is a shocking and conspicuous example of bankruptcy abuse is that you filed this case for the express purpose of blocking Mr. Kartzman's efforts to evict you from your home in New Jersey. You filed the case knowing full well that Judge Winfield in March of this year had already concluded that you were not a debtor of the sort entitled to Chapter 13 relief.

In fact, her opinion which denied you that relief quotes from a Supreme Court of the United States case indicating that you are an individual who is not a member of the class of "honest but unfortunate debtors" that the bankruptcy laws were enacted to protect. See Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. at 287.

This is a circumstance in which the Chapter 13 case commenced on July 19 follows within hours the dismissal of the Chapter 11 case of To-Viet-Dao which also included actions by your counsel that were shocking in effect that there were affirmatively misleading statements made to this Court to schedule an emergency hearing for purposes of applying the automatic stay to the actions Mr. Kartzman had undertaken against you in New Jersey. That request for emergency relief that I must believe you helped to engineer followed within approximately one week Judge Brown's decision of July 5 which affirmed Judge Winfield's various decisions that went against you in the bankruptcy court.

My reasonable conclusion from what I have observed both in the To-Viet-Dao hearing last week and today's status conference, is that you are seeking to use this court as a means to collaterally attack judgments that have been obtained against you by Mr. Kartzman as Chapter 7 trustee in the cases involving you and your wife in the District of New Jersey.

The United States bankruptcy system was not set up so that an individual debtor could cross the Hudson River and obtain relief in New York not obtainable in New Jersey.

It's apparent from my review of Judge Winfield's decision of March 5, 2007 that she fully and fairly evaluated your request to convert your Chapter 7 case to a case under Chapter 13 and concluded for a variety of reasons that conversion was not appropriate. She gave careful consideration to the United States Supreme Court's recent decision In re Maramma in which the United States Supreme Court indicated that there was not an automatic right of conversion from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 and that good faith was a matter of significance for bankruptcy courts to consider in administration of cases such as this.

As Judge Winfield observed at Page 8 of her decision: "The facts in Maramma are not dissimilar to the facts in the case at bar. Here, the Truongs transferred their property to family members and corporate entities to put it beyond the reach of the trustee and their creditors. They have made inconsistent and unconvincing explanations of their assets and liabilities. Moreover, they filed this motion to convert only after the Chapter 7 trustee moved to remove them from their residence for failure to cooperate with him. This type of bad faith conduct makes the Truongs unworthy of and therefore ineligible for the benefits of Chapter 13. A bankruptcy court will not permit the abuse of the bankruptcy process."

I agree with Judge Winfield. A bankruptcy court should not permit the abuse of the bankruptcy process and I see abundant evidence that Mr. Truong is seeking to use this court to achieve a goal not otherwise obtainable in New Jersey in a case that has been pending since 2003. This is an abuse that I will not tolerate.

My original inclination before today's status conference was that one way to deal with this situation was to simply transfer on my own motion this Chapter 13 case from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey upon a finding that the District of New Jersey was the proper venue for this bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy case was commenced by Mr. Truong's own statement today for the express purpose of protecting his possessory rights, if any, at 327 Demott Avenue, a property which is located in Teaneck, New Jersey and which has been the subject of much litigation before Judge Winfield and in the District Court of New Jersey.

However, based upon the statements made on the record, the papers submitted by Mr. Kartzman, the position articulated by the Office of the United States Trustee, and in particular my observation of Mr. Truong, who during his own presentation today has shown a complete lack of remorse in his dealing with these issues, I believe that the only proper resolution of this matter is to dismiss this bankruptcy case as an unabashedly bad faith filing; one in which Mr. Truong, on the heels of dismissal of the To-Viet-Dao Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, sought once again to obtain the protections of the automatic stay and knew full well at the time that he filed the Chapter 13 case here that he was seeking a relief that had been denied him by Judge Winfield following full argument and an adjudication that was made in March of 2007.

Mr. Truong is not entitled to obtain here what he could not obtain in his first bankruptcy case.

This is not a system that allows shopping from judge to judge to finally find one who will find your way, Mr. Truong. Judge Winfield's decision is entitled to full respect. The only way that I can give it the respect that it deserves is to dismiss your case today, and that's what I'm doing.

As far as the request for springing sanctions, I am prepared to provide an injunction against filing —

MR. TRUONG: Your Honor, you said before that you would let me talk before you make your conclusion of law. I did not even — I was not even granted to put it on the record an opportunity to object to Mr. Kartzman practical motion to dismiss my case why he has no standing because actually the authority to move the court to dismiss my Chapter 13 case belong to the — my Chapter 13 — Mr. Sapir, who is the trustee of my case —

THE COURT: Well, before you —

MR. TRUONG: — and not —

THE COURT: — before —

MR. TRUONG: — because of Mr. Kartzman —

THE COURT: Mr. —

MR. TRUONG: Please, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Truong, you're in my courtroom, so you'll have a full opportunity to speak, but you also interrupted me when I was speaking. And I'm speaking to you from a position of not just authority, but of real concern for what you have perpetrated on the federal and state judicial system. I have reviewed in preparation for today's hearing cases which include Judge Stein's decision from 2003, a publicly available decision, in which it was apparent to him, as it is apparent to me, that you have engaged in a pattern of frivolous conduct that is sanctionable. So I will give you a full opportunity to say whatever you wish to say, but you'll have that opportunity after I finish saying what I have to say.

MR. TRUONG: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: As to the issue of springing sanctions raised by the U.S. Trustee's Office, including what amounts to non-dischargeable monetary penalties associated with further filings, I am not inclined to provide monetary penalties associated with a bankruptcy filing. There is a constitutional right to commence bankruptcy cases in appropriate circumstances.

This case appears to me to be one in which the right to file has been forfeited by the abuse of circumstances surrounding the timing of the filing and the fact that Mr. Truong with full knowledge knew that a Chapter 13 was not available to him in his home court. I am concerned that the dismissal of Mr. Truong's case will not be sufficient under today's circumstances because his wife might just as easily file for Chapter 13 relief tomorrow.

So what I am prepared to do in light of the obvious linkage between Mr. Truong and his wife — I will note, for example, that in the original Chapter 13 case of To-Viet-Dao, Mr. Truong appeared when the case was first called as a pro se individual acting on behalf of a limited partnership. I told him at that time that a limited partnership could not appear in court as a pro se party and needed to be represented by counsel. I also told him that Chapter 13 was a chapter of the Bankruptcy Code that did not apply to limited partnerships, but only to individuals.

He requested at that first hearing — and this is only the second time that I've had Mr. Truong in my court. He requested at that first hearing the right to represent the interest of the limited partnership, noting that he himself was an attorney, although he said he had been suspended. I told him that he would need to obtain an outside lawyer to represent the enterprise.

He further argued with me at the time for the right to convert the case to Chapter 11 rather than to dismiss the case so as to minimize the filing fees associated with commencing a new bankruptcy case. When I first met Mr. Truong, I had no knowledge whatsoever of the rich litigation history that Mr. Truong had in connection with 327 Demott Avenue, nor did I know that To-Viet-Dao had filed for Chapter 13 originally and sought a conversion to Chapter 11 for purposes of protecting that real estate and for purposes of collaterally attacking judgments that had been obtained in the District of New Jersey.

During subsequent hearings with respect to To-Viet-Dao, Mr. Truong's wife appeared instead of Mr. Truong, and she appeared in her capacity as a general partner of To-Viet-Dao. I will note that at the hearing that took place in this court last week on July 18th, Mr. Truong's wife again appeared, although she was accompanied by counsel.

I conclude as a result of the appearances that have taken place in the To-Viet-Dao bankruptcy case, which is clearly related to this bankruptcy case in that both were filed for purposes of protecting the real estate in New Jersey from Mr. Kartzman's ongoing efforts to evict the occupants, that Mrs. Truong and Mr. Truong are involved in a tag team effort to frustrate Mr. Kartzman's eviction. For that reason, I am prepared to include in the order dismissing this Chapter 13 case an injunction applicable both to Mr. Truong and to Maryse Truong.

Mr. Truong, you wish to say something. This is your opportunity.

MR. TRUONG: Yes, Your Honor. The bottom line of this case and why I am so frustrated in this case is this, Your Honor. My house was worth $270,000 at the time when I transfer it to my sister-in-law in 1999. Whatever it happens, now in 2003 —

THE COURT: May I stop you for one second? When you transferred your house to your sister-in-law, your sister-in-law was a resident of Paris, correct?

MR. TRUONG: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It has already been determined by Judge Winfield in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey and by Judge Brown on appeal from her decisions in the adversary proceeding brought against you by the trustee that the transfer to your sister-in-law and the further transfers that ultimately ended up in the property being titled to To-Viet-Dao were fraudulent conveyances. And we're not just talking about constructive fraudulent conveyances, we're talking about active culpable fraud. We're talking about an intention on your part found after full opportunity for you to present your case that you were intentionally seeking to protect that property from the hands of creditors, including Broadwhite.

MR. TRUONG: That's not —

THE COURT: You don't need to re-litigate that here. It is — it's been —

MR. TRUONG: Your Honor, you —

THE COURT: — done.

MR. TRUONG: — say you give me a chance —

THE COURT: A court —

MR. TRUONG: — to talk and right now —

THE COURT: You have a chance to talk —

MR. TRUONG: — you interrupt me every second.

THE COURT: You have a chance to talk about the matter that's before me.

MR. TRUONG: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You do not have an opportunity to relitigate any of the matters —

MR. TRUONG: No that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: — that have been litigated in New Jersey.

MR. TRUONG: I do not, Your Honor. I just say the value of the property's 270 at that time. So however it is, now the house is worth 750,000. So whatever it is, the fraudulent transfer, be it that way. Actually it's not, but then we don't litigate that. But let it be. So it's still only $270,000 subject to fraudulent transfer and now the value of the house is $750,000. So be that the estate has only $270,000 in that property and the balance of $480,000 still belong to me outright if that's the case, Your Honor.

So that's the main point, and right now I owe absolutely nothing to anybody, a Chapter 7 debtor or a Chapter 13 debtor. And right now all that I worry about is Mr. Katzman's fee, Your Honor. He just make up the whole thing and then now he claim first just only few minute ago that he has $200,000 in fees. That's what I worry about.

And now just last week he say I have $300,000 in fee against you. So right now the bottom line is very simple, Your Honor. They want to sell my house to get $750,000 for Mr. Kartzman to get 300,000 fees and nobody else get anything, except maybe the mortgagee get 14,000 like he said himself. That's the bottom line, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Truong, the only court that should be hearing this argument is Judge Winfield's court or to the extent that the matter has been appealed to a higher court, the Third Circuit. The Southern District of New York is a stranger court to this dispute.

You may have an office on Broadway and you may have written numerous pro se pleadings from that location which were filed in the District of New Jersey, but you voluntarily commenced, as I understand it, two separate bankruptcy cases in the District of New Jersey, you've commenced voluntarily two collateral bankruptcy cases in the Southern District of New York, you've had a history of litigation in New York State Supreme Court and in the District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to a host of personal and transactional issues, none of which are relevant to today's status conference.

The only issue that is really relevant to today's status conference is whether this bankruptcy case filed by you on July 19 was filed abusively and whether or not it was filed in the right district. I believe that it was filed abusively given the circumstances and my direct personal knowledge of what went on in the To-Viet-Dao bankruptcy case immediately prior to your commencement of this case, and I believe that even if it were not filed abusively that it is filed in the wrong court.

Even if you could demonstrate that your office location was a location where you generated regular income, a matter which is suspect in light of the affirmations made in connection with your New Jersey in forma pauperis application, I would find that the only forum that is appropriate for hearing the Chapter 13 case would be Judge Winfield's court because that is the court that has the greatest familiarity with the facts and circumstances of your longstanding dispute with your creditors and with Mr. Kartzman as Chapter 7 trustee.

Furthermore, I would on my own motion if I weren't dismissing the case for an abusive filing, transfer the case for the convenience of the parties and in the interest of justice to Judge Winfield. I have no doubt that once Judge Winfield were to receive the case upon transfer, she would be appalled to discover that you had sought to undermine her authority and the finality of her decision in March of 2007 finding in clear and convincing language that you did not qualify for Chapter 13 relief, that you had come here seeking to obtain that relief from me. I am not going to enable you to do that.

The only appropriate outcome is dismissal. Because whether or not this were a bad faith filing, it would be subject to dismissal upon the U.S. Trustee's motion because of your failure to obtain credit counseling. I believe that the U.S. Trustee would also seek to move to dismiss the case based upon the abusive nature of the filing, particularly as it related to the order crafted by that office on the 18th of July seeking to bar To-Viet-Dao from further filings for one year.

MR. TRUONG: Can —

THE COURT: Your consistency is apparent. You will stop at nothing to game the bankruptcy system. It's stopping here and now. And if you continue, and you're welcome to say whatever you like, you will simply further support Mr. Kartzman's efforts, which I will give him to right to pursue, to obtain sanctions against you under Section 1927. You are digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself and I believe that you are in the predicament that you are in because you have rather adroitly created it for yourself.

MR. TRUONG: Your Honor, the reason why I have an emergency it's because first To-Viet-Dao was supposed to be able to protect the property in New Jersey, but on the 18, Your Honor say that the property was gone from To-Viet-Dao estates therefore it cannot protect it anymore.

And where was it gone to? It's gone to me, Your Honor. So therefore only after To-Viet-Dao case was dismiss and I do not obtain anymore the stay on the house due to To-Viet-Dao's filing for Chapter 11 that I have an emergency to file by myself as you know. So that from that viewpoint emergency is absolutely true. So it had to be done quickly because you know they would evict me from my house today. So that I have no choice even though I know that the credit counseling is needed, I cannot know that I would have to file for Chapter 13 right away after To-Viet-Dao case was dismiss, Your Honor.

And now for my good faith belief in my right to have the Chapter 13 is even though Judge Winfield did not allow me to convert, it's because mainly first, Your Honor, it's because she said that I had to refer to the amount of debts in my original filing and now since it was amended to be less than 270,000, therefore that main thing — that main hurdle is met and therefore I qualify even to renew my Chapter 7 13 (sic) before her. Then I can do that, except that I would like to do it here thinking that I have the right to have my business in this forum and therefore, as a person who move from New Jersey to New York, I have the right also to choose my forum.

Of course if I would like to be able to have a court who is impartial and with a trustee who is impartial, I may have a better chance. If the Court blame that on me, that's absolutely true, Your Honor. I do need a court that is impartial and that give me a chance of talking my case. And my case which is very simple. Whatever it is my house is worth now $750,000 and all what Mr. Kartzman could do if he say that it doesn't belong to my Chapter 13 estate, he's completely wrong, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, let me stop you because what you've just said demonstrates why this case should be dismissed. You have said in your own words that you believe this Chapter 13 case is about what happens to the equity value at 327 Demott Avenue, Teaneck, New Jersey, a property that has been the subject of much litigation already in the District of New Jersey.

It's not going to be re-litigated here, and you're not going to have the opportunity to choose your forum if it's not a forum that you've chosen in good faith. And I believe based upon everything that I have seen both in the To-Viet-Dao bankruptcy and in this bankruptcy, and I have learned quite a lot in the last week, that you are not the kind of debtor who deserves the protection of Chapter 13 in this court and that Judge Winfield was quite right when she referenced the Grogan v. Garner case from the Supreme Court. You are not a member of the class of honest but unfortunate debtors that bankruptcy laws were enacted to protect. You are, sir, as far as I can tell, a schemer; somebody who is trying to use the system for your own advantage. I will not tolerate it and this hearing is now over.

I will entertain an order from the Office the United States Trustee to dismiss this case as a very obvious example of a bad faith filing, together with a filing injunction applicable to Mr. Truong and his wife.

Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard at this point?

MR. KARTZMAN: Your Honor, can we — Steve Kartzman, Your Honor. Can we clarify the filing injunction? Is there a time period, a geographic scope —

THE COURT: I think the geographic scope should be the entire country and I think that the time should be a year.

MR. KARTZMAN: And dismissal is with prejudice of the Chapter 13 case, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Absolutely.

MR. KARTZMAN: And will Your Honor retain jurisdiction to adjudicate a timely application for sanctions under Title 28 Section 1927?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KARTZMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. VELEZ-RIVERA: Your Honor, we'll provide a form of order along the terms of today's record and also in conformity with the To-Viet-Dao dismissal order. We'll also, if Your Honor would like, submit a proposed form of order denying the motion to excuse the credit counseling requirement.

THE COURT: That's fine.

MR. VELEZ-RIVERA: And then —

THE COURT: I think that you should include in your dismissal order as cause the failure to file credit counseling.

MR. VELEZ-RIVERA: Absolutely, Your Honor.

And then one more thing, Your Honor. The record should reflect, and I will file an affidavit that I'm personally handing to Mr. Truong a copy of the dismissal order in the To-Viet-Dao case.

THE COURT: Fine. Thank you.

MR. KARTZMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. VELEZ-RIVERA: Thank you.

MS. KAVA: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, Miss Kava.

MR. TRUONG: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Proceedings concluded at 10:37 a.m.)

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter to the best of my knowledge and ability.

Exhibit 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKDR. MAC TRUONG,OPINION AND ORDERPlaintiff,06 Civ. 1430 (SAS)— against —STEPHEN P. McGOLDRICK, PAUL J.CURRAN, LUIS A. GONZALEZ, MILTONL. WILLIAMS, BETTY WEINBERGELLERIN, GEORGE D. MARLOW, andANGELA M. MAZZARELLI,Defendants.

Dr. Mac Truong ("Truong" or "plaintiff), a disbarred attorney, is suing the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department (the "Committee") as well as Justices, and former Justices, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, First Department (the "First Department"). The instant pro se action, based on diversity of citizenship, seeks billions of dollars of damages for: (1) the alleged violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights to due process and religious freedom; and (2) defamation and/or libel. Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint on the following grounds: (1) the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and (3) absolute judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. For the following reasons, defendants' motion is granted and plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Broadwhite Litigation

In 2000, Truong was a defendant in a landlord-tenant action entitled Broadwhite Associates. v. Mac Truong and Maryse Truong. After a nonjury trial, the Honorable Harold Tompkins determined that Truong knowingly submitted false evidence, a forged lease, and offered false testimony in support of that lease. On January 20, 2000, Justice Tompkins found in plaintiffs favor and awarded damages of $356,509.83. The First Department affirmed the trial court's determination that the proffered lease was forged and found that the "sanctions imposed by the court upon defendants for their unremitting course of obstructionist, frivolous and otherwise contemptuous conduct during this litigation, including disobedience of court orders, were entirely proper."B. Disciplinary Proceedings

Supreme Court, New York County, Index No. 101759/95.

See Broadwhite Assocs. v. Truong, 294 A.D.2d 140, 141, 740 N.Y.S.2d 882 (1st Dep't 2002).

See id. at 140.

Id. at 141.

As a result of Truong's misconduct in the Broadwhite litigation, the Committee moved in the First Department for an order finding Truong guilty of professional misconduct and suspending him from the practice of law. The Committee's motion was granted and Truong was suspended pending a hearing by the Committee to consider evidence of mitigation or aggravation and to recommend a sanction. After the hearing, the Committee sought an order confirming the recommendation of the Hearing Panel that Truong be disbarred as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York. The First Department confirmed the Hearing Panel's recommendation and disbarred Truong, stating:

See In re Truong, 2 A.D.3d 27, 768 N.Y.S.2d 450 (1st Dep't 2003) (per curiam) ("Suspension Order").

See id. at 30.

See In re Truong, 22 A.D.3d 62, 800 N.Y.S.2d 12 (1st Dep't 2005) ("Disbarment Order").

The record conclusively establishes that respondent [Truong] is unfit to practice law. He submitted a forged document to the court in Broadwhite and testified falsely in support thereof and, far from demonstrating any remorse, he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that he committed any misconduct. He is undeterred in frivolous and contemptuous conduct. Disbarment is the appropriate sanction.

C. Plaintiff's Allegations

Id. at 67.

In his Complaint, plaintiff claims that he is

a polyglot, patented inventor, psychologist, political scientist, philosopher, author of books in three languages, TV producer. He is also most of all creator, founder and leader of a new world religion capable of ending all violent theological differences or armed conflicts among existing major world religions, building from scratch an ultramodern city called World Cap serving as the political and cultural capital of the world, and raising human consciousness to the next level of civilization in long-lasting peace, harmony and prosperity for all humanland, based on Plaintiff's original method of thought processing called Absolute Relativity, and a world constitution written andpublished by him about 1978 to establish the Universal Republic of the world empowered by a federal democratic and liberal world government entitled the World Unfolding Structure of Civilization, in a new era to be known as the Absolute Relativity era, practicing reliability, productivity and respectability in Absolute Relativity, i.e. with balance, common sense and reason.

Complaint ¶ 12.

Plaintiff then alleges that defendants "acted in concert to severely damage his reputation, credibility, profession and business by intentionally and maliciously making outrageous, egregious, defamatory and libelous false statements of fact aimed at plaintiff to portray him as a liar, a fraud and a thief." In particular, Truong complains that on December 2, 2003 and August 11, 2005, defendants "intentionally and maliciously made false written and published statements of fact that are libelous, slanderous and/or defamatory regarding Plaintiff." The dates referred to by Truong are the dates of the suspension order and disbarment order, respectively. Plaintiff's principal grievance is with the First Department's finding, inter alia, that Truong submitted a forged lease to the trial court in the Broadwhite litigation. The First Department's reference to this allegedly false statement libeled, defamed and/or slandered plaintiff in addition to violating his constitutional rights to due process and religious freedom. Plaintiff seeks $8,700,000,000 in damages, as well as punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff also seeks an order directing defendants to "publicly offer apology to Plaintiff and withdraw all their libelous and/or defamatory statements against Plaintiff."

Id. ¶ 14.

Id ¶¶ 15-16.

See In re Truong, 2 A.D.3d at 28 ("The instant petition is premised, in part, upon a Supreme Court landlord-tenant action entitled Broadwhite Assoc. v. Mac Truong Maryse Truong (NY County, Index No. 101759/95) in which the trial court found that respondent, who was representing himself and his wife, offered a forged lease into evidence and gave false testimony in support of this document."); In re Truong, 22 A.D.3d at 63 ("This evidence was the finding of the trial court in a Supreme Court landlord-tenant action that respondent offered a forged lease into evidence and gave false testimony in support thereof.").

See Complaint ¶¶ 17, 20, 23.

See id. WHEREFORE Clause.

Id.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "[a] court may not dismiss an action 'unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" The task of the court in ruling on a motion to dismiss is "merely to assess the legal feasability of the complaint, not to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support thereof." "Thus, '[t]he issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.'"

Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ., 445 F.3d 586, 590 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).

Eternity Global Master Fund Ltd. v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., 375 F.3d 168, 176 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

York v. Association of Bar of City of N.Y., 286 F.3d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)).

Furthermore, a complaint need not state the legal theory, facts, or elements underlying the claim in most instances. Pursuant to the simplified pleading standard of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must include only "'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Under that pleading standard, "a plaintiff is required only to give a defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests."

See Phillips v. Girdich, 408 F.3d 124, 127 (2d Cir. 2005). See also Simpson v. Nickel, No. 05-4686, 2006 WL 1585445, at *1 (7th Cir. June 12, 2006) ("One pleads 'claims' (which is to say, grievances) rather than legal theories and factual specifics.").

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)). See also Simpson, 2006 WL 1585445, at *1 (stating that Swierkiewicz's holding that plaintiffs need not allege either the factual or legal elements of a prima facie case under the employment discrimination laws is "equally applicable to every other federal claim").

Leibowitz, 445 F.3d at 591.

When deciding a motion to dismiss, courts must accept all factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-moving party's favor. And when a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, courts are instructed to construe the complaint liberally. This is particularly important where a pro se plaintiff alleges a civil rights violation.

See id. at 590 (citing Chambers v. Time Warner Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002)).

See Phillips, 408 F.3d at 128 ("But as low as the requirements are for a complaint drafted by competent counsel, we hold pro se complaints to an even lower standard.") (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam)).

See Thompson v. Carter, 284 F.3d 411, 416 (2d Cir. 2002).

Finally, while courts generally may not consider matters outside the pleadings in determining if a complaint should survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, documents attached to the pleadings, documents referenced in the pleadings, and documents integral to the pleadings may be considered. Courts may also take judicial notice of facts within the public domain and public records if such facts and records are "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."

See Chambers, 282 F.3d at 152-53; Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c).

Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)(2). See also Kramer v. Time Warner, Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 773-74 (2d Cir. 1991) ("[A] district court may take judicial notice of the contents of relevant public disclosure documents required to be filed with the SEC as facts 'capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.'") (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)(2)).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction Over Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings

The New York State Legislature has vested the exclusive jurisdiction to discipline attorneys in the four departments of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division. Furthermore, the First Department has delegated to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee its judicial function of investigating charges of attorney misconduct. Accordingly, the Committee, like the disciplinary and grievance committees in other jurisdictions, "is a delegatee of the powers of the Appellate Division as an aid to that Court in carrying out its statutory functions."B. Eleventh Amendment

The Judiciary Law of the State of New York states:

The supreme court shall have power and control over attorneys and counsellors-at-law and all persons practicing or assuming to practice law, and the appellate division of the supreme court in each department is authorized to censure, suspend from practice or remove from office any attorney and counsellor-at-law admitted to practice who is guilty of professional misconduct, malpractice, fraud, deceit, crime or misdemeanor, or any conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; and the appellate division of the supreme court is hereby authorized to revoke such admission for any misrepresentation or suppression of any information in connection with the application for admission to practice.

N.Y. Judiciary Law § 90(2).

New York State regulations state as follows:

This court shall appoint a Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the Judicial Department, which shall be charged with the duty and empowered to investigate and prosecute matters involving alleged misconduct by attorneys who, and law firms that, are subject to this Part and to impose discipline to the extent permitted by section 603.9 of this Part.

N.Y. Comp. Codes R. Regs., tit. 22, § 603.4(a).

Rappoport v. Departmental Disciplinary Comm. for First Judicial Dep't, No. 88 Civ. 5781, 1989 WL 146264, at *1 (S.D.N.Y Nov. 21, 1989).

The Eleventh Amendment bars actions against state officials sued in their official capacities where the state is the real party in interest. Thus, defendants cannot be sued in their official capacities. However, Truong states that he is suing defendants in their individual capacities "acting in absence of all jurisdiction and/or authority and/or official functions to harm plaintiff herein." Moreover, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit in equity against state officials who violate federal rights. Here, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of an apology and retraction of all allegedly libelous statements. Thus, there is no Eleventh Amendment bar to plaintiff's request for injunctive relief or his monetary claims against defendants in their individual capacities.

The Eleventh Amendment provides:

The Judicial Power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

U.S. Const. amend. XI.

See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985).

Plaintiffs Affirmation in Opposition to Defense Motion to Dismiss and for Injunctive Relief as Against the Plaintiff ¶ 113.

See Dube v. State Univ. of NY, 900 F.2d 587, 595 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not preclude a federal court from granting prospective injunctive relief against a state official sued in his or her official capacity).

C. Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Immunity

The Supreme Court has firmly established that judges are immune from suit, including suit under section 1983, "for monetary damages arising from their judicial acts." "Like other forms of official immunity, judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages." Judicial immunity was created "for the benefit of the public, whose interest it is that the judges should be at liberty to exercise their functions with independence and without fear of consequences." "Thus, if the relevant action is judicial in nature, the judge is immune so long as it was not taken in the complete absence of jurisdiction."

Gallas v. Supreme Court of Pa., 211 F.3d 760, 768 (3d Cir. 2000) (citing Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9 (1991) (per curiam)).

Mireles, 502 U.S. at 11 (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)).

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967).

Huminski v. Corsones, 396 F.3d 53, 75 (2d Cir. 2005). See also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) ("A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction.'").

In determining whether an action is "judicial in nature," courts must consider the nature of the act and whether it is a "function normally performed by a judge." However, the Supreme Court has already characterized attorney disciplinary proceedings, albeit those conducted within the State of New Jersey, as "judicial in nature." There is no reason why such characterization should not be extended to disciplinary proceedings conducted in the State of New York. Thus, the First Department's rulings suspending, then disbarring, Truong are judicial in nature. Furthermore, the First Department clearly has subject matter jurisdiction over attorney disciplinary proceedings within its department. Therefore, the State Judiciary defendants sued herein in their individual capacities are immune from plaintiff's suit for money damages.

Stump, 435 U.S. at 362.

Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assoc., 457 U.S. 423, 433-34 (1982) ("It is clear beyond doubt that the New Jersey Supreme Court considers its bar disciplinary proceedings as 'judicial' in nature.").

See Sassower v. Mangano, 927 F. Supp. 113, 120 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (stating that under Middlesex, "state bar disciplinary proceedings are clearly judicial in nature"), aff'd, 122 F.3d 1057 (2d Cir. 1997) (unpublished).

The same is true for the Committee defendants. "The concern for the integrity of the judicial process is reflected in the extension of absolute immunity to 'certain others who perform functions closely associated with the judicial process.'" "Under the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity, absolute immunity extends to administrative officials performing discretionary acts of a judicial nature." Accordingly, quasi-judicial immunity bars plaintiffs monetary claims against Committee chairman Curran and Committee staff attorney McGoldrick. However, neither judicial immunity nor quasi-judicial immunity bars a claim for prospective injunctive relief.D. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Oliva v. Heller, 839 F.2d 37, 39 (2d Cir. 1988) (quoting Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200 (1985)).

Sassower, 927 F. Supp. at 120.

See Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 541-42 (1984) ("We conclude that judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in her judicial capacity.").

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine "is confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." The doctrine acknowledges that "Congress's grant to federal district courts of jurisdiction . . . 'is a grant of original jurisdiction, and does not authorize district courts to exercise appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments, which Congress has reserved to th[e United States Supreme] Court.'" Thus, "federal district courts do not have jurisdiction over claims that have already been decided, or that are 'inextricably intertwined' with issues that have already been decided, by a state court."

See generally District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923).

Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indzus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (per curiam).

Mitchell v. Fishbein, 377 F.3d 157, 165 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n 535 U.S. 635, 644 n. 3 (2002) (alteration in original)).

Mitchell, 377 F.3d at 165 (quoting Bridgewater Operating Corp. v. Feldsein, 346 F.3d 27, 29 (2d Cir. 2003) (per curiam)).

The Second Circuit has counseled that "'inextricably intertwined' means, at a minimum, that where a federal plaintiff had an opportunity to litigate a claim in a state proceeding . . ., subsequent litigation will be barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine if it would be barred under principles of preclusion." Accordingly, where a lawsuit or claim would be barred in state court by either res judicata or collateral estoppel, Rooker-Feldman prevents the federal court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction.

Vargas v. City of New York, 377 F.3d 200, 205 (2d Cir. 2004).

Under the doctrine of resjudicata, or claim preclusion, a party is barred from litigating a claim more than once. See Quadrozzi Concrete Corp. v. City of New York No. 03 Civ. 1905, 2004 WL 2222164, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2004).

Under general principles of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, a judgment in a prior proceeding bars a party and its privies from relitigating an issue if: (1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and actually decided, (3) there was full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits.

N.L.R.B. v. Thalbo Corp., 171 F.3d 102, 109 (2d Cir. 1999) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

The determination that Truong knowingly offered false evidence and testimony was part of a state trial court judgment which was affirmed by an appellate court. The Suspension and Disbarment Orders resulting from that determination were also state court judgments. By requesting that all allegedly libelous statements be withdrawn, plaintiff is asking this Court to review and overturn the state court determination in the Broadwhite litigation as well as the Suspension and Disbarment Orders. Furthermore, plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the initial state court determination of forgery. Plaintiff also had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the forged lease issue throughout the course of his disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly, principles of issue preclusion bar plaintiff from re-litigating the forged lease issue in a federal forum, albeit indirectly by requesting a retraction. For all of these reasons, plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and must be dismissed.

In suspending plaintiff, the First Department stated: "Contrary to his contentions, respondent had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues herein in the Supreme Court action and on its subsequent appeal. Similarly unavailing is respondent's assertion that the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel is inappropriate, at this time, since his various appeals have not yet been exhausted." In re Truong, 2 A.D.3d at 29-30. If anything, plaintiff over-litigated the Broadwhite judgment.

Despite the court order enjoining respondent from commencing any lawsuits arising from, or related to, the Broadwhite Assoc. v. Truong action, respondent commenced, without court permission, a series of federal actions in New York and New Jersey, where respondent resides, against the Supreme Court Justice presiding over the trial, the law firm representing the landlord, the landlord and its employees. All of these actions, which, in effect, sought to collaterally attack the underlying judgment, were ultimately dismissed.

Id. at 29.

By notice of cross-motion, plaintiff moved to dismiss, or alternatively stay, the suspension petition. See id. at 28. Plaintiff also vigorously litigated against the disbarment petition. See In re Truong, 22 A.D.3d at 63-64 ("Respondent cross-move[d] for an order dismissing the petition, disaffirming the recommendation of the Hearing Panel and the Referee's report and reinstating him to the practice of law nunc pro tune from the date of his interim suspension.").

IV. CONCLUSION

In sum, plaintiff's claims against defendants in their official capacities (if any have been brought) are barred by the Eleventh Amendment Plaintiff's monetary claims against defendants in their individual capacities are barred by judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. Finally, plaintiff's claim for equitable relief is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Accordingly, plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. In addition, given plaintiff's history of vexatious and frivolous litigation, I hereby grant the injunction requested by defendants. Accordingly, plaintiff is enjoined from commencing any actions or proceedings against the Committee defendants or the State Judiciary defendants, or against any other parties, relating to the Broadwhite litigation or relating to his suspension or disbarment from the practice of law, absent prior approval from this Court. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to refuse for filing any document plaintiff attempts to file, unless accompanied by leave from a Magistrate Judge of this Court.

The Clerk of the Court is further directed to close this motion (#2 on the docket) and this case.

SO ORDERED:

_________________________ Shira A. Scheindlin U.S.D.J.

Appearances

Plaintiff (Pro Se):For Defendants:

Mac Truong 327 McDemott Avenue Teaneck, NJ 07666 Monica Connell Assistant Attorney General 120 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-8965 Exhibit 7VITRANSCHART, INC., Plaintiff, — against — DAVID M. LEVY, ESQ., LEVY BOONSHOFT LICHTENBERG, LLP., TRUONG DINH TRAN, ELAINE NGUYEN, SANG KIM NGUYEN, HUNG THI NGUYEN, CHARLES SCHWAB CO., INC., MAC TRUONG, Defendants. MAC TRUONG, Third-Party Plaintiff, against — BARRY A. COZIER, JUSTICE, HAROLD TOMPKINS, LEVY BOONSHOFT SPINELLI, P.C., Third-Party Defendants. MAC TRUONG, Cross-Claimant, — against — DAVID M. LEVY, ESQ., LEVY BOONSHOFT LICHTENBERG, LLP., TRUONG DINH TRAN, ELAINE NGUYEN, SANG KIM NGUYEN, HUNG THI NGUYEN, Cross-Defendants. MAC TRUONG, Counter-Claimant, — against — VITRANSCHART, INC., Counter-Defendant.00 Civ. 3618 (SHS)UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12609August 29, 2000, DecidedAugust 31, 2000, FiledSUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Related proceeding at Truong v. Schwab, 289 A.D.2d 98, 735 K.Y.S.2d 15, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12127 (N.Y.App.Div. 1st Dep't, 2001)

Motion denied by Vitranschart, Inc. v. Levy, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16156 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 12, 2003)DISPOSITION: [*1] Third-party complaint dismissed in its entirety, and all other pending motions dismissed without prejudice to their being renewed once the action has been restored to the active calendar. Vitranschart's claim against Mac Truong automatically stayed.

COUNSEL: For VITRANSCHART, INC., plaintiff: Richard H, Zweig, New York, NY.

For VITRANSCHART, INC., counter-defendant: Richard H. Zweig. New York, NY.

OPINION BY: Sidney H. Stein

OPINION

OPINION ORDER

This litigation represents the most recent installment of a dispute that has spanned two continents, repeatedly involved both the New York State and federal judicial systems, and led to many judicial opinions. It also represents the unusual situation of a member of the New York bar, who claims to have handled more than 10,000 litigations, seeking deference on the grounds that he is a pro se litigant. This same litigant has been enjoined by federal judges from bringing additional federal litigations and has sued two state judges who have adjudicated his state litigations on the grounds that they conspired with his adversary against him.

It is time to cabin this dispute to manageable proportions and to have it proceed to final resolution in its proper forum — the New York State court system. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth [*2] in this Opinion and Order, the claims against Mac Truong are automatically stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362 since he has filed for bankruptcy. the third party claims against the New York state judges and the law firm of Levy Boonshaft Spinelli, P.C. are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (1) pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine since the third-party complaint effectively seeks review of state court determinations, (2) pursuant to the abstention principles of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669, 91 S Ct. 746, and (3) pursuant to the doctrine of judicial immunity; and the remainder of the action is stayed pursuant to Colorado River principles of abstention pending the completion of the state court proceedings.

Plaintiff Vitranschart, Inc. brought this action seeking relief from various parties with respect to certain funds held by defendant Charles Schwab Co., whose ownership has already been subject to dispute in at least two related state actions and one related federal action. Defendant Mac Truong then filed counter-claims against Vitranschart, Inc. and cross-claims against the other defendants. Mac Truong also filed third-party claims against the New York [*3] Supreme Court justices presiding over the state actions as well as against one of the law firms involved in those actions.

In light of the related state actions, this Court issued orders directing the parties to show cause why the present action should not be placed on the suspense docket while the state actions proceed and why the third-party complaint should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Extensive briefing followed. For the reasons set forth below, the third-party complaint is dismissed, the remainder of the action is placed on the suspense docket, and all other pending motions are dismissed without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

The underlying facts have already been summarized in earlier decisions in the related actions. See Mac Truong v. Vitranschart, Inc., No. 98 Civ. 6328 (SHS), slip op. at 2-5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 1999); Mac Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 9-14 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000). Vishipco Lines and Dai Nam Hang Hai Cong Tay Vishipco Line of Vietnam ("Dai Nam") were incorporated in South Vietnam. The shareholders of these corporations gave third-party defendant Truong Dinh Tran ("Tran") authority to manage and to operate [*4] the corporations. In January 1977, Tran signed powers of attorney authorizing defendant Mac Truong, then a law student in the United States. to act on behalf of the corporations to recover certain funds and settlement claims, to make all decisions with respect to the listed claims, and to receive a percentage of the recovery as compensation.

Mac Truong was successful in his recovery efforts, and the claims were settled. However, the proceeds were not distributed to Tran or the corporations. Rather, upon obtaining transfer licenses from the U.S. Treasury Department in 1986, Mac Truong transferred the funds to various Merrill Lynch accounts in the name of Vishipco Lines, Vishipco Line, and Dai Nam. Until 1995, the United States government blocked the funds pursuant to provisions of the Trading With the Enemy Act. Mac Truong wrote to Tran on March 17, 1995. listing the more than $1.1 million held in the accounts and advising Tran that the funds were no longer blocked and that Tran should provide instructions as to the disposition of his share of the funds. On June 30, 1995. Merrill Lynch contacted Mac Truong and advised him that after the fall of Saigon, Vishipco became Soyosco, which [*5] later became Vitranschart, Inc., a Vietnamese state-owned company. Merrill Lynch then questioned Mac Truong as to whether Tran was president of Vishipco in January 1977 and whether Vietnam was the rightful owner of the funds. In response, Mac moved the funds from Merrill Lynch to three corporate accounts with the same names at Charles Schwab Co., upon presentation of his powers of attorney. Mac Truong also opened five individual accounts at Schwab for himself, his wife, and his two children.

Tran contends that he had no knowledge of the transfer of the funds from Merrill Lynch to Schwab. In August 1997, Mac Truong wrote to Tran to state that he had changed the names of the accounts, stating that "without these formerly and inactive foreign corporations on the titles, there would be no problem when the assets are liquidated and distributed." However, Mac Truong did not disclose that he had transferred the amounts to accounts at Schwab in his own name, although he did state that he had given his social security number to provide for a lower tax. Thereafter. Tran went to Schwab and asserted his rights to the corporate funds.

On August 4, 1997, Tran delivered a letter to Schwab revoking [*6] Mac Truong's powers of attorney. On that date, Schwab placed restrictions on the three corporate accounts preventing Mac Truong from withdrawing funds from them. On August 6, 1997, as president of Vishipco, Tran opened new corporate accounts at Schwab and transferred the funds to them. The next day, Mac Truong opened three additional accounts at Schwab and instructed Schwab to transfer the funds in the original corporate accounts to these new accounts. This request was denied. One month later, Mac Truong contacted Schwab complaining about Tran's August 6 transfers. Subsequently, on September 11, 1997, Schwab restricted the newly opened accounts. Two weeks later, Schwab, acting on its own initiative, restricted Mac Truong's personal accounts.

Mac Truong commenced an action in New York Supreme Court against Schwab on September 10, 1997, and filed an amended complaint on October 4, 1997, seeking damages incurred by Schwab's denial of access to the funds in the corporate and personal accounts. Mac Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97 (the "first state action"). Schwab filed an interpleader naming Tran, Vishipco, and Dai Nam as third-party defendants. Tran asserted several cross-claims [*7] against Mac Truong, including claims for breach of contract, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and an accounting. Mac Truong asserted cross-claims as well. On February 13, 1998, Mac Truong filed a separate action in New York Supreme Court against Tran, Elaine Nguyen, Sang Kim Nguyen, and Hung Thi Nguyen for fraud and for conversion. Mac Truong v. Nguyen, No. 102512/98 (the "second state action"). Extensive motion practice followed. See Mac Truong, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 3-9 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000).

On June IS, 1998, the state court (Barry A. Cozier, J.) granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against Schwab in the first state action and maintaining certain restrictions on Mac Truong's accounts with Schwab. On April 3, 2000, the state court consolidated the two state actions, granted Tran's motion for summary judgment on his cross-claims against Mac Truong, and also granted Tran's motion for summary judgment dismissing Mac Truong's own cross-claims. In particular, the state court found that Mac Truong breached his fiduciary duty and forfeited his right to compensation when he transferred corporate funds into his personal accounts, declared Vishipco and Dai [*8] Nam the lawful owners of the interpleaded assets, and ordered Mac Truong to render an accounting. See Mac Truong, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 21-23 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000).

On September 9, 1998, Mac Truong filed a federal action in the Southern District of New York. Mac Truong v. Vitranschart, Inc., No. 98 Civ. 6328 (SHS) (the "first federal action"). The complaint asserted a claim of conversion against Tran, Elaine Nguyen, Sang Kim Nguyen, and Hung Thi Nguyen and sought a declaratory judgment against Vitranschart and Schwab stating that the funds held by Schwab belonged to Mac Truong. The complaint also named as defendants David M. Levy and his law firm, Levy Boonshoft Lichtenberg, LLP, both of whom appeared in the state actions representing the third-party defendants, for interference with Mac Truong's due process rights and for fraud. On January 21, 1999, this Court granted defendants' motion to stay the first federal action "pending completion of the state court proceedings." Mac Truong, No. 98 Civ. 6328 (SHS), slip op. at 13 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 1999). Six months later, Schwab was dismissed as a defendant in the first federal action by stipulation of the parties. [*9] On April 22, 2000, this Court denied Mac Truong's motion to restore the action to the active calendar following the grant of summary judgment in the state actions, on the grounds that "the state court actions have not been completed," Mac Truong, No. 98 Civ. 6328 (SHS), slip op. at 1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22. 2000), since, at a minimum, a "long accounting" must be submitted by Mac Truong, see Mac Truong, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 24-25 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000).

On May 12, 2000. Vitranschart filed a separate federal action in the Southern District of New York, Vitranschart, Inc. v. Levy, No. 00 Civ. 3618 (SHS) (the "second federal action"). The complaint names as defendants Tran, Schwab, Levy, Levy's law firm, Elaine Nguyen, Sang Kim Nguyen. and Hung Thi Nguyen. Vitranschart alleges that these defendants have acted in concert to deprive Vitranschart of its rightful share of the funds during the course of the state actions, and that Levy and his law firm wrongfully purported to represent Vitranschart in those actions as a successor-in-interest to the funds.¹ The complaint also names Mac Truong as a defendant and asserts against him the single claim that once he recovers [*10] Vitranschart's share of the funds according to the terms of the Treasury Department licenses, he has a "duty to remit it to plaintiff herein without delay." In light of the ongoing state proceedings and the fact that the first federal action involving this dispute was stayed, on May 23, 2000, this Court ordered the parties to show cause why the second federal action should not also be placed on the suspense docket. See Vitranschart, No. 00 Civ. 3618 (SHS), slip op. at 1. That question has now been fully briefed.

1. The complaint asserts state and federal causes of action for conspiracy. fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, wrongful attachment, trespass to chattel, and violations of constitutional due process and of the Trading With the Enemy Act (with respect to the terms of the Treasury Department licenses issued in 1986).

On May 30, 2000, while briefing was underway, Mac Truong filed a sixty-seven page answer that included two counterclaims alleging that Vitranschart failed to exercise due diligence in [*11] pursuing its share of the funds in state court and in notifying the state court that Levy and his law firms were not authorized to represent Vitranschart in the state actions. Mac Truong also included a third-party complaint asserting nineteen cross-claims against the other defendants as well as nineteen identical claims against the following third-party defendants: New York Supreme Court Justice Barry A. Cozier, who is presiding over the state actions; New York Supreme Court Justice Harold Tompkins, who presided over yet another state action in which judgment was entered against Mac Truong; and Levy's law firm. The thrust of Mac Truong's allegations is that two respected and experienced state court jurists conspired with Mac Truong's adversary's law firm and other defendants to deprive Mac Truong of his rightful share to the funds during the course of the state actions. The third-party complaint also alleges that Justice Tompkins improperly imposed sanctions on Mac Truong in a separate state action and encouraged Justice Cozier to expedite summary judgment in the two related state actions in order to ruin Mac Truong financially.²

2. The third-party complaint against the state judges and the law firm sets forth the following eight state law causes of action: conspiracy, coercion and extortion, wrongfully imputing fraudulent or criminal conduct, wrongful attachment, trespass to chattel, defamation and libel, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Eleven federal causes of action are also alleged: five causes of action for violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and six discrete causes of action for violations of the Trading With the Enemy Act (with respect to the terms of the licenses issued by the Treasury Department in 1986), RICO, the federal mail fraud statute, the "Federal Anti-Fraud Provisions," constitutional due process, and the First Amendment right to petition government for a redress of grievances.

[*12] On June 6, 2000, Assistant New York Attorney General Carolyn Cairns Olson sent this Court a letter on behalf of Justices Cozier and Tompkins pointing out that Mac Truong had filed two similar federal complaints against these Justices in the past several weeks and that both complaints had been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, on the grounds that they improperly sought federal district court review of state court decisions.³ See Mac Truong v. Tompkins, No. 00 Civ. 3490 (SAS), slip op. (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2000), modified, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2000), and reconsideration denied, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2000); Mac Truong v. Tompkins. No. 00 Civ. 3199 (SAS). slip op. (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2000). The letter also pointed out that on May 30, 2000 — the same day Mac Truong filed the third-party complaint in the second federal action — U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin entered an injunction barring Mac Truong "from filing any new lawsuits related to the state court action without prior leave of this Court."⁴ Mac Truong, No. 00 Civ. 3490 (SAS), slip op. at 4 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2000). This Court deemed [*13] the June 6 letter to be a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) (b)(6) and on June 21, 2000 ordered Mac Truong to show cause why the third-party complaint against the state judges and Levy's law firm should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. That question has also now been fully briefed.

3. Mac Truong is presently appealing both of these decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See Affirmation of Mac Truong, dated July 13, 2000, at 50.

4. Because it is unclear whether Mac Truong was aware of the May 30 injunction when he filed this federal action that same day, he will not be deemed to be in violation of that injunction. See Mac Truong, No. 00 Civ. 3490 (SAS), slip op. at 3 n. I (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2000). In addition to Judge Scheindlin, two other judges of the Southern District of New York in unrelated cases have either enjoined Mac Truong from filing additional lawsuits or warned him about harassing litigation. See In re New York Int'l Hostel, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15913, at *3, Nos. 88-B-1126, 92-9716 A, 95 Civ. 8475, 1997 WL 633522, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 1997) ("On July 10, 1995, Judge Brozman of the Bankruptcy Court . . . warned Minhlong's counsel, Mac Truong, Esq., that if he persisted in repetitive litigation, she would not hesitate to impose sanctions. Ignoring the Bankruptcy Court, Minhlong filed this appeal."); To v. Bentsen, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2390, No. 93 Civ. 6241, 1995 WL 86422, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 1995) (Mac Truong appearing for plaintiffs) ("Plaintiffs and any person acting on their behalf are therefore enjoined from filing an action involving the blocked assets in any federal or state court of the United States other than the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York without prior leave of this Court."), affd mem. sub nom. To v. Rubin, 99 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 1995).

[*14] By order dated July 11, 2000, this Court denied Vitranschart's motion for a default judgment in the second federal action, on the grounds that defendants' delay in answering the complaint was entirely justified in light of the ongoing briefing as directed by the orders to show cause.⁵ Eight days later, Mac Truong sent a letter informing this Court that on July 12 he and his wife, Maryse Mac-Truong, filed a petition for bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey that listed the following parties as creditors: Vitranschart, Vishipco, Dai Nam, and Tran. On July 21, 2000, briefing was completed with respect to the questions raised in the orders to show cause. Four days letter, Levy sent a letter indicating that Vitranschart had filed a notice of motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) as well as a notice of motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 65 seeking to bar Levy and his finn from further appearances in the state court proceedings.⁶

5. Indeed, there is some suggestion in the complex claims and motions of the parties that Mac Truong and Vitranschart may not be completely adverse in their interests. Specifically, in conjunction with Vitranschart's motion for a default judgment, Mac Truong, his wife, and Vitranschart submitted a proposed stipulation of settlement among themselves that they sought to have incorporated into a default judgment against the remaining defendants. Similarly, in response to Vitranschart's recent notice of motion for summary judgment, both Mac Truong and his wife have affirmed, "We have no objection to the said motion [for summary judgment] to be granted by this Court as long as all the terms of the Stipulation and Agreement duly signed and executed by and between us and Vitranschart, Inc., on June 28, 2000 are granted by this Court." Affirmation of Mac Truong and Maryse Mac-Trong, dated July 27, 2000, P 7.

[*15]

6. Mac Truong has repeatedly invoked the fact that he is proceeding pro se as a basis for granting him deferential consideration, including repeated requests not to appear in person in court. See. e.g. Ltr. of Dr. Mac Truong, dated June 7, 2000, at 3 ("Since I am pro se in this action, I would be at a disadvantage at a conference in this matter."). It is undisputed, however, that Mac Truong is a member of the bar of New York. See Ltr. of Dr. Mac Truong to Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, dated June 3, 2000, at 3 ("The undersigned has practiced law since 1982, [and] filed over 10,000 legal actions and/or proceedings with different courts and the U.S. Department of Justice."), reprinted as attachment to Ltr. of Dr. Mac Truong to Hon. Sidney H. Stein, dated June 7, 2000; see also 60 E. 80th St. Equities, Inc. v. Sapir (In re 60 E. 80th St. Equities. Inc.), 218 F.3d 109, 2000 WL 942931, at *1 (2d Cir. 2000) (affirming sanctions against attorney appearing pro se and imposing additional sanctions on appeal).

DISCUSSION

I. Automatic Stay

[*16] Mac Truong contends that by filing a bankruptcy petition, he and his wife "are granted an automatic stay" pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. Ltr. of Dr. Mac Truong, dated July 19, 2000, at I. As an initial matter, therefore, this Court must thus decide to what extent the present litigation is subject to an automatic stay.

11 U.S.C. § 362 provides. in pertinent part, that the filing of a petition in bankruptcy "operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of (1) the commencement or continuation of a judicial, administrative, or other proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under [the Bankruptcy Code]." 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). "The automatic stay provision is 'one of the fundamental debtor protections provided by the bankruptcy laws,' designed to relieve 'the financial pressures that drove [debtors] into bankruptcy.'" Eastern Refractories Co. v. Forty, Eight Insulations Inc., 157 F.3d 169. 172 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 95-595. at 340 (1977), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5963, 6296-97)). "It affords debtors a 'breathing spell' [*17] from the collection process and enables them to attempt a repayment or reorganization plan to satisfy existing debt." Id. (quoting In re Siciliano. 13 F.3d 748, 750 (2d Cir. 1994)).

As a result, Vitranschart's action against Mac Truong is subject to the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362. However, the stay does not apply with respect to the other defendants named in Vitranschart's complaint, since "it is well-established that stays pursuant to § 362(a) are limited to debtors and do not encompass non-bankrupt co-defendants." Teachers Ins. Annuity Ass'n v. Butler, 803 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1986); see Gray v. Hirsch, 230 B.R. 239, 242 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (collecting cases); 1 Collier Bankruptcy Manual P 362.03[1][d], at 362-9 to -10 (Lawrence P. King et al. eds., 3d ed. 2000).

Nor does the stay apply to Mac Truong's third-party complaint. cross-claims, or counterclaims, since the automatic stay provision applies only to claims "against the debtor" and not to claims brought by the debtor against other parties. See Olick v. Parker Parsley Petroleum Co., 145 F.3d 513. 516 (2d Cir. 1998) (per [*18] curiam): Koolik v. Markowitz, 40 F.3d 567. 568 (2d Cir. 1994) (per curiam); Berry Estates. Inc. v. State of New York (In re Berry Estates, Inc.), 812 F.2d 67, 71 (2d Cir. 1987). In other words, the automatic stay provision "does not prevent entities against whom the debtor proceeds in an offensive posture — for example, by initiating a judicial or adversarial proceeding — from 'protecting their legal rights.'" Justus v. Financial News Network Inc. (In re Financial News Network Inc.), 158 B.R. 570, 573 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (quotation omitted); see Vasile v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 20 F. Supp. 2d 465, 499 (E.D.N.Y. 1998), affd mem., 205 F.3d 1327 (2d Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, Vitranschart's claim against Mac Truong is automatically stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).

II. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

The third-party defendants have moved to dismiss Mac Truong's third-party complaint pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in light of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

[*19] "The so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine, generally stated, is that inferior federal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction over cases that effectively seek review of judgments of state courts and that federal review, if any, can occur only by way of a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court." Moccio v. New York State Office of Court Admin. 95 F.3d 195. 197 (2d Cir. 1996); see Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. 263 U.S. 413, 414-16. 44 S. Ct. 149, 150, 68 L. Ed 362 (1923): District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476-79, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 1311-13, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983). "The Rooker-Feldman doctrine also bars federal courts from considering claims that are 'inextricably intertwined' with a prior state court determination." Johnson v. Smithsonian Inst., 189 F.3d 180, 185-86 (2d Cir 1999). Review is barred regardless of whether the state court decision was "final or interlocutory in nature." Gentner v. Shulman, 55 F.3d 87, 89 (2d Cir. 1995).

Thus, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine plainly bars reconsideration by a federal district court of "the precise claims raised in [*20] a state court proceeding." but just as plainly does not bar federal determination of claims that "were never presented" and that "the plaintiff did not have an opportunity to present . . . in those [state] proceedings." Moccio. 95 F.3d at 198-99. Between these two extremes, the characterization of claims as "inextricably intertwined" with the prior state court determination "means, at a minimum, that where a federal plaintiff had an opportunity to litigate a claim in a state proceeding (as either the plaintiff or defendant in that proceeding), subsequent litigation of the claim [in federal court] will be barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine if it would be barred under the principles of preclusion." Id. at 199-200 (citing Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco. Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25, 107 S. Ct. 1519. 1533, 95 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1987) (Marhsall, J., concurring)).

Therefore, if Mac Truong's third-party complaint is construed as asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S 1983. application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine turns on whether issues essential to those causes of action are precluded pursuant to principles of collateral [*21] estoppel. See id. 95 F.3d at 200. "Under New York law, collateral estoppel will apply only if(1) the issue in question was actually and necessarily decided in a prior proceeding, and (2) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first proceeding.'" Id. (quoting Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865. 869 (2d Cir. 1995)).

To determine whether the issues in question were actually and necessarily decided in a prior proceeding. this Court first turns to Mac Truong's state law causes of action. The New York Supreme Court has already dismissed claims asserted by Mac Truong in the related state actions for fraud, libel and slander, breach of contract, and conspiracy. See Mac Truong, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 23 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000). Thus, the state court actually and necessarily decided issues essential to Mac Truong's third-party claims for conspiracy (Count Three), defamation and libel (Count Twelve), and breach of contract (Count Seventeen). In addition, the state court also granted summary judgment finding that Mac Truong breached his fiduciary duty and thereby forfeited any compensation, see [*22] id. at 20-22, and the issues resolved by these findings are essential to his present claims for coercion and extortion (Count Four), wrongfully imputing criminal and fraudulent conduct (Count Five), and unjust enrichment (Count Eighteen). Similarly, the state court's orders placing restrictions on Mac Truong's accounts with Schwab actually and necessarily decided issues essential to his third-party claims for wrongful attachment (Count Ten) and trespass to chattel (Count Eleven).

Next, this Court turns to Mac Truong's federal causes of action. To the extent Mac Truong asserts violations of the 1986 Treasury Department licenses issued pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act (Count One), that claim inevitably implicates the state court's conclusion that those licenses did not vest title to the funds in question but merely granted authority to transfer the funds between accounts. See id at 18-20. With respect to the claims alleging violations of the federal mail fraud statute (Count Six), the "Federal Anti-Fraud Provisions" (Count Seven), the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Counts Eight. Nine, Thirteen, Fourteen, and Fifteen), and RICO (Count Sixteen), those claims [*23] not only challenge the manner in which the state court litigation has been conducted but also implicate issues already resolved by the state court's dismissal of Mac Truong's claims for deceitful and fraudulent acts. material misrepresentation during litigation, and abuse of power. See id. at 23.

Similarly, Mac Truong's federal due process claims (Counts Two and Nineteen) generally attack the manner in which the state litigation has proceeded and the particular application of New York rules of procedure in the context of that litigation. Adjudication of these claims would therefore "run directly contrary to the prohibition in Feldman against lower federal court jurisdiction over 'challenges to state-court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court's action was unconstitutional.'" Moccio. 95 F.3d at 200 (quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486, 103 S. Ct. at 1317).

Finally, in Count Nineteen, Mac Truong also argues that the New York rules of court procedure violate constitutional due process and the First Amendment right to petition government for a redress of grievances, [*24] insofar as those procedures do not permit direct suit against a New York Supreme Court Justice in order to remedy false conclusions of fact and law, "especially when conduct complained of may appear to intertwine with judicial proceedings before that officer of the court." Third-Party Compl. at 60, P 111(1)-(2). As relief, he seeks a declaratory judgment to that effect. See id. at 65-66. Although "the Rooker-Feldman doctrine permits federal courts to entertain such general claims," these latter claims must fail to the extent that they constitute a "post hoc attempt to state a cause of action." Moccio. 95 F.3d at 200. As evidenced by Mac Truong's reference to conduct that "may appear to intertwine with judicial proceedings" in state court, these allegations are "a transparent and futile attempt to evade the Rooker-Feldman doctrine." Mac Truong, No. 00 Civ. 3490 (SAS), slip op. at 3 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2000); see Johnson 189 F.3d at 187 ("Here, the plaintiff seeks in effect to set aside the state court's order. That he cannot do in a federal district court."); see also Tucker v. Outwater, 118 F.3d 930, 932-34 (2d Cir. 1997). [*25]

The second prong of the collateral estoppel test — whether Mac Truong had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in state court the issues he now raises — is also met in this case. "The burden to show the absence of such a full and fair opportunity rests with" Mac Truong. Moccio. 95 F.3d at 201. Mac Truong was a full participant in the state actions, he was fully capable of appearing on his own behalf by virtue of his admission to the New York bar, and he had the opportunity to present evidence in the state court proceedings. See id. Although he asserts in conclusory fashion that he was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate these issues, he utterly fails to substantiate that assertion. Moreover, he has all appropriate rights of appeal and reconsideration within the state court system, including the ability to file an appeal once final judgment is entered in those actions. Accordingly. Mac Truong's third-party complaint is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In the alternative, the third-party complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the abstention principles [*26] articulated in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54, 91 S. Ct. 746, 750-55. 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971). "'The core of the rule laid down in Younger v. Harris . . . is that a federal court, in the absence of unusual circumstances, cannot interfere with a pending state criminal prosecution.'" Gentner, 55 F.3d at 89 (quoting 17A Wright, Miller Cooper, Federal Practice Procedure § 4252, at 193-95 (2d ed. 1988)). The Younger doctrine "has been extended to civil proceedings" and "has not been limited to injunctions against the proceedings themselves." Id. (collecting cases). The doctrine permits abstention only where (1) there is an ongoing state proceeding; (2) an important state interest is implicated; and (3) the plaintiff has an avenue open for review of constitutional claims in the state court. See id. (quoting CECOS Int'l, Inc. v. Jorling, 895 F.2d 66, 70 (2d Cir. 1990)).

In this case, there is an ongoing state proceeding. Second, the relief requested by Mac Truong, particularly with respect to Justices Cozier and Tompkins, implicates the important state interests in administering its own judicial [*27] system, see Pennzoil Co., 481 U.S. at 12-13, 107 S. Ct. at 1527 (contempt proceeding), as well as in regulating the conduct of corporate fiduciaries, cf. BBS Norwalk One. Inc. v. Raccolta, Inc., 60 F. Supp. 2d 123, 128-29 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (conflict of laws analysis), affd mem., 205 F.3d 1321 (2d Cir. 2000). Third, there is no reason to believe that the constitutional claims raised by Mac Truong would not be reviewable upon appeal from a final judgment of the New York court system. In addition, most if not all of Mac Truong's federal statutory and constitutional claims could be rendered moot depending on the final resolution of his state claims by the New York state courts. Federal intervention at this point would therefore be premature, in light of the probability that any federal adjudication would be effectively advisory. See Pennzoil, 481 U.S. at 12 n. 9, 107 S. Ct. at 1526-27 n. 5. Accordingly, the third-party complaint should also be dismissed pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine.

Finally, and in the alternative, Mac Truong's third-party claims for damages against Justices Cozier and Tompkins must [*28] be dismissed under principles of judicial immunity. The common law doctrine of judicial immunity has "established as 'a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself.'" Tucker. 118 F.3d at 932 (quoting Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 347, 20 L Ed. 646 (1872)). Thus, "'[a] judge is absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts.'" Id. 118 F.3d at 933 (quoting Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356, 98 S. Ct. 1099, 1104, 55 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1978)). The doctrine does recognize two limitations. First, "a judge will be denied immunity for damages where he (i) acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction: and (ii) knew or must have known that lie was acting in such a manner." 118 F.3d at 936. "Second, a judge is immune only for actions performed in his judicial capacity." Id. at 933. However, neither limitation applies in the present case, and therefore Mac Truong's damages claims against Justices Cozier and Tompkins [*29] must be dismissed.

Accordingly, the third-party complaint is dismissed in its entirety.⁷

7. Although third-party defendants also moved to dismiss the claims against them on the grounds of res judicata in light of Judge Scheindlin's prior decisions, those decisions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and therefore res judicata is inapplicable. See Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 126 F.3d 365. 370 (2d Cir. 1997) ("Even where a second action arises from some of the same factual circumstances that gave rise to a prior action, res judicata is inapplicable if formal jurisdictional or statutory barriers precluded the plaintiff from asserting its claims in the first action.").

III. Colorado River Abstention

To the extent that this action is not already stayed or dismissed, this Court concludes that Colorado River abstention is appropriate, for substantially the same reasons as set forth in the this Court's order staying the first federal action. See generally Mac Truong, [*30] No. 98 Civ. 6328 (SHS), slip op. at 5-13 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 1999).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has explained that six factors must guide the decision of a federal court to abstain from exercising concurrent jurisdiction pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine in light of an ongoing state court proceeding:

(1) the assumption of jurisdiction by either court over any res or property;

(2) the inconvenience of the federal forum;

(3) the avoidance of piecemeal litigation;

(4) the order in which jurisdiction was obtained;

(5) whether state or federal law supplies the rule of decision; and

(6) whether the state court proceeding will adequately protect the rights of the party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction.

Burnett v. Physician's Online. Inc., 99 F.3d 72. 76 (2d Cir. 1996); accord Village of Westfield. N.Y. v. Welch's, 170 F.3d 116. 121 (2d Cir. 1999); see also Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813-21. 96 S. Ct. 1236, 1244-48, 47 L. Ed. 2d 483 (1976). "No single factor is necessarily dispositive, and the weight to be given to any one factor may vary [*31] greatly from case to case, depending on the particular setting of the case." Welch's, 170 F.3d at 121 (quotation omitted).

Because this Court has already discussed these factors in detail in its Order dated January 21, 1999, and because the facts underlying this action are essentially the same — indeed, the actions are effectively the same — only a brief recitation is required with respect to Vitranschart's complaint and Mac Truong's cross-claims and counterclaims: First, as before, the absence of jurisdiction over a res by the state court points toward the exercise of federal jurisdiction, and therefore the first factor weighs in favor of the exercise of federal jurisdiction. Second, inasmuch as the Southern District of New York is as convenient as the Supreme Court of New York, this factor is also neutral and also weighs in favor of retaining jurisdiction.

Third, avoidance of piecemeal litigation weighs heavily in favor abstention, given that Mac Truong already has filed two suits in state court and one suit in federal court based upon the same set of facts and for essentially the same relief, i.e., a determination of title in the disputed funds. Any decision [*32] by this Court could lead to an outcome inconsistent with that of the state court decisions. Moreover, because not all parties to the suits are identical, not all would be bound by the judgment of any given court. Fourth, looking to the progress of the state actions, the state court has already granted summary judgment as to title in the interpleaded assets, and the state court is presently awaiting an accounting from Mac Truong prior to entering a final judgment. See Mac Truong, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 21-23 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000). Therefore, this factor also weighs heavily in favor of abstention.

Fifth, of the seven causes of action asserted by Vitranschart, five pertain to state claims governed by state rules of decision. The other two pertain to alleged violations of constitutional due process and of the Trading With the Enemy Act and are therefore governed by federal rules of decision. However, the due process claim rests on the allegation that defendants fraudulently excluded Vitranschart as a necessary party from the state court proceedings, see Compl. PP 51-53, and accordingly this claim may be mooted in large part if Vitranschart seeks to intervene in the [*33] state actions. See Pennzoil, 481 U.S. at 12 n. 9, 107 S. Ct. at 1526-27 n. 5 (Younger abstention). Moreover, the state court explicitly ruled on the relevance of the Treasury Department licenses in its summary judgment decision, and because those licenses lie at the heart of the Trading With the Enemy Act claim, federal district court review of that decision could implicate the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Mac Truong, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 18-20 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000). Similarly, both of Mac Truong's two counterclaims and eight of his nineteen cross-claims are state claims and therefore hinge on state rules of decision. In addition, Mac Truong's federal cross-claims, which are identical to the third-party claims discussed above, are likely barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and by principles of Younger abstention. Consequently, the presence of these federal claims does not weigh heavily against abstention.

Finally, there is absolutely no support in the complaint for the proposition that New York state court procedures are inadequate to protect the rights of Vitranschart and Mac Truong. As discussed above, although Vitranschart and [*34] Mac Truong assert in conclusory fashion that they have been denied constitutional process in the state court proceedings, they fail to substantiate that assertion in any manner whatsoever. apart from the fact that they disagree with the rulings of the state judges. Moreover, summary judgment has already been granted in the state actions, and any prejudice to Vitranschart and Mac Truong from allowing those actions to proceed to an accounting and final judgment is likely to be minimal. Therefore, this final factor weighs in favor of abstention.

Based upon an analysis of the six Colorado River factors as enunciated in Burnett, this Court concludes that abstention is appropriate in this case and that this action should be stayed pending completion of the state court proceedings.

IV. Remaining Motions

As discussed above, Vitranschart has filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) as well as a motion for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 barring Levy and his law firm from further appearances in the related state actions. Because this action will be stayed pending completion of the state court proceedings, both of these motions [*35] — as well as any other motions currently pending in this action — should be dismissed without prejudice.⁸

8. This Court finds in the alternative that the preliminary injunction motion is barred for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rooker-Feldman, since it essentially seeks to relitigate Mac Truong's repeated motions before the New York Supreme Court to disqualify Levy and his law firm. The state court has consistently and repeatedly denied those motions, see Mac Truong, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 15 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000), and if Vitranschart wishes to contest those decisions it should seek to do so in the context of the state actions.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the third-party complaint is hereby dismissed in its entirety, and all other pending motions are dismissed without prejudice to their being renewed once the action has been restored to the active calendar. In light of the history of the related state and federal actions, and the outstanding [*36] injunction against Mac Truong imposed by Judge Scheindlin, as well as the actions taken by other federal judges in regard to Mac Truong, see In re New York Int'l Hostel, Inc., 1997 WL 633522, at *1; To v. Bentsen, 1995 WL 86422, at *5, Mac Truong is hereby put on notice that any further harassing or vexatious litigation by him will be subject to sanction, see Margo v. Weiss, 213 F.3d 55. 64-65 (2d Cir. 2000). Because Vitranschart's claim against Mac Truong is subject to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), that claim is automatically stayed. The remainder of this action is hereby placed on the suspense calendar pending completion of the state court proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Sidney H. Stein, U.S.D.J.

Exhibit 8VISHIPCO LINE, HA NAM CONG TY, DIA NAM HANG HAI C.T., VIETNAM HANG HAI C.T., RANG DONG HANG HAI C.T., MEKONG SHIP CO. SARL, VISHIPCO SARL, THAI BINH C.T., VIET NAM TAU BIEN C.T., VAN AN HANG HAI C.T., CONG TY U TAU SAO MAI, Plaintiffs, — against — CHARLES SCHWAB CO. and LAYTON BROOKS HECHT and EAMONN F. FOLEY, ESQ., Defendants. DR. MAC TRUONG, Plaintiff, — against — CHARLES SCHWAB CO. and LAYTON BROOKS HECHT and EAMONN F. FOLEY, ESQ., Defendants. HUGH MAC TRUONG, Plaintiff, — against — CHARLES SCHWAB CO. and LAYTON BROOKS HECHT and EAMONN F. FOLEY, ESQ., Defendants. THULINH MAC TRUONG, Plaintiff, — against — CHARLES SCHWAB CO. and LAYTON BROOKS HECHT and EAMONN F. FOLEY, ESQ., Defendants. MARYSE MAC TRUONG, Plaintiff, — against — CHARLES SCHWAB CO. and LAYTON BROOKS HECHT and EAMONN F. FOLEY, ESQ., Defendants. MAC TRUONG, DIP, Plaintiff, — against — CHARLES SCHWAB CO. and LAYTON BROOKS HECHT and EAMONN F. FOLEY, ESQ., Defendants.02 Civ. 7823 (SHS), 02 Civ. 7846 (SHS), 02 Civ. 7877 (SHS), 02 Civ. 7915 (SHS), 02 Civ. 7928 (SHS), 02 Civ. 7929 (SHS)UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4082March 19, 2003, Decided March 19, 2003, Filed

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Dismissed by, Costs and fees proceeding at, Application granted by Vishipco Line v. Charles Schwab Co., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6820 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 22, 2003)PRIOR HISTORY:Truong v. Schwab, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9795 (S.D.N.Y., May 24, 2002)DISPOSITION: [*1] Defendants' motion to dismiss these actions granted. Mac Truong enjoined from commencing new proceedings.

COUNSEL: For Vishipco Line, Ha Nam Cong Ty, Dai Nam Hang Hai CT, Vietnam Hang Hai CT, Rang Dong Hang Hai CT. Mekong Ship Co Sarl, Vishipco Sarl, Thai Binh CT, Viet Nam Tau Bien CT, Van an Hang Hai CT, Cong Ty U Tau Sao Mai, PLAINTIFFS (1:02cv7823): Mac Truong. New York, NY USA.

For Mac Truong, PLAINTIFF (1:02cv7846): Mac Truong, New York, NY USA.

Mac Truong, PLAINTIFF (1:02cv7846), Pro se. New York, NY USA.

For Hugh MacTruong, PLAINTIFF (1:02cv7877): Mac Truong, Law Off: Dr Mac Truong, Atty-at-Law, New York, NY USA.

For Thulinh MacTruong, PLAINTIFF (1:02cv7915): Mac Troung, Mac Truong Esq, New York, NY USA.

For MARYSE MAC TRUONG, plaintiff (02-CV-7928): Mac Truong, Law Off: Dr. Mac Truong, Atty-at-Law, New YOrk, NY.

For Dip MacTruong, PLAINTIFF (1:02cv7929): Mac Truong, Law Off: Dr Mac Truong, Atty-at-Law, New York, NY USA. JUDGES: Sidney H. Stein, U.S.D.J.

OPINION BY: Sidney H. Stein

OPINION

OPINION AND ORDER

Mac Truong, Esq., who purports to represent plaintiffs Vishipco Line, Ha Nam Cong Ty, Dia Nam Hang Hai C.T., Vietnam Hang Hai [*2] C.T., Rang Dong Hang Hai C.T., Mekong Ship Co. SARL, Vishipco SARL, Thai Binh C.T., Viet Nam Tau Bien C.T., Van An Hang Hai C.T. and Cong Ty U Tau Sao Mai (collectively, "Vishipco"),¹ himself, his wife and children, brought these six actions against defendants Charles Schwab Co. ("Schwab") and its attorneys, Layton Brooks Hecht and Eamonn F. Foley, Esq. alleging that Schwab improperly handled plaintiffs' assets and Schwab and its attorneys conspired to restrict, and in fact restricted, plaintiffs' access to their property through misrepresentations or false pretenses. Defendants have now filed a motion in all six actions to (1) dismiss the actions pursuant to the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (2) enjoin Mac Truong from filing additional actions against Schwab or its attorneys; (3) enjoin Mac Truong and his wife, Maryse Mac Truong, from proceeding in a virtually identical action in New Jersey and directing them to withdraw that complaint; and (4) impose sanctions against Mac Truong for harassing and vexatious litigation tactics. At oral argument on December 5, 2002, this Court denied defendants' [*3] motion enjoining Mac Truong and his wife from proceeding in the New Jersey action. Now, for the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion is granted in all other respects.

1 Mac Truong's actual representation of Vishipco is discussed in this Opinion. See, supra at 13 n. 5.

I. BACKGROUND

The underlying facts of this Hydra-headed dispute have been repeatedly summarized in earlier decisions of this Court and New York Supreme Court in predecessor actions filed in those courts. See, e.g., Truong v. Charles Schwab, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9795, No. 02 Civ. 2533, 2002 WL 1159668 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2002) (SHS); Vitranschart, Inc. v. Levy, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12609, No. 00 Civ. 3618, 2000 WL 1239081 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2000) (SHS); Mac Truong v. Vitranschart, Inc., No 98 Civ. 6328 (SHS), slip op. at 2-5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 1999) (SHS); Mac Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 9-14 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000). This dispute has spanned two continents and more than a score of litigations. The time has drawn [*4] nigh to attempt to resolve it once and for all.

These six actions involve funds belonging to Vietnamese shipping companies that were nationalized after the fall of Saigon in 1975. In 1977, Truong Dinh Tran ("Tran"), a former manager of the companies, entered into an agreement with Mac Truong for Mac Truong to act on behalf of the companies — collectively known as Vishipco — to recover certain funds and settlement claims in return for receiving a percentage of the recovery as compensation. Mac Truong was able to recover some of the money and deposited it into certain accounts at Merrill Lynch Co., Inc.

In 1975, the United States government blocked all assets of the Vietnamese government that were located in the U.S., see the Trading With the Enemy Act ("TWEA"), 50 U.S.C. App. §§ 1 et seq., until 1995, when the U.S. and Vietnam entered into a treaty pursuant to which the U.S. agreed to unblock these assets and release them to the Vietnamese government, except for the sum of $200 million, which it retained to compensate U.S. nationals. See the Vietnam Claims Settlement Act ("VCSA"), 22 U.S.C. § 1645 et seq. The VCSA purported [*5] to settle all nationalization-related property claims between the two nations. See Huu To v. Bentsen, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2390, No. 93 Civ. 6241, 1995 WL 86422 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 1995), affd To v. Bank of New York. 101 F.3d 681 (2d Cir 1996). See also To v. Rubin, 99 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 1995) (unpublished disposition). Mac Truong represented the plaintiffs in To v. Bentsen and To v. Rubin.

In June 1995, Merrill Lynch wrote to Mac Truong to inquire whether the Vietnamese government was now the rightful owner of the funds that had been deposited with it on behalf of Vishipco. In lieu of responding to the letter, Mac Truong (1) unilaterally transferred the funds to Schwab, where he established accounts under the same names as at Merrill Lynch and (2) opened five individual accounts at Schwab for himself, his wife and his two children.² At some point in time, a dispute arose between Tran and Mac Truong over control of these accounts. Tran eventually convinced Schwab to deny Mac Truong access to the accounts.

2 Mac Truong alleges that at least some of the funds in these personal accounts were transferred from other accounts "which had been opened and active many years before with other banking institutions." See Compl. 02 Civ. 7915, P 15; Compl. 02 Civ. 7877, P 15; Compl. 02 Civ. 7928, P 15; and Compl. 02 Civ. 7929, P 15).

[*6] In 1997, Mac Truong filed suit in New York Supreme Court (Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97), claiming he was the rightful owner of the funds (the "Funds").³ On June 18, 1998, Judge Cozier of New York Supreme Court dismissed Mac Truong's complaint against Schwab for misrepresentation and conversion, among other claims, finding that Schwab was authorized to control the accounts. See Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 15-16 (June 18, 1998). Prior to this adjudication, Mac Truong filed a second New York state court action against Tran and others for fraud and conversion. See Truong v. Nguyen, et al., No. 102512/98.

3 Vishipco Lines, Tran and Dia Nam Hang Hai Cong Ty Vishipco Line of Vietnam ("Dia Nam") were named as third party defendants in that litigation.

In April 2000, the New York state court consolidated the two state actions and granted summary judgment to Tran, Dai Nam and Vishipco Lines on the grounds that Mac Truong had forfeited any claim to his portion of the Funds [*7] by transferring the Funds to his own accounts See. Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 22 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000) ("the court finds that plaintiff has forfeited his right to compensation, in the form of commissions or otherwise, effective upon his unlawful transfer of corporate funds into his personal accounts in or about August 1995."), affd 289 A.D.2d 98. 735 N.Y.S.2d 15 (1st Dep't 2001)."⁴

4 In addition, the New York court favorably cited to an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that noted that Tran was "a major shareholder of most, if not all of [Vishipco]." Id. at 20 (citing In Vishipco Line et al. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 660 F.2d 854, 857 (2d Cir. 1981)).

In July 2000, subsequent to the New York court's determination that Mac Truong had no claim to the Funds, Mac Truong and his wife (Maryse Mac Truong) filed a petition for personal bankruptcy in New Jersey. See Foley Aff., Ex. B at 5. The bankruptcy judge, [*8] noting that "this case has all the makings of another Jarndyce v. Jamdyce," dismissed the bankruptcy petition on October 23, 2002 because "the debtor hasn't moved its case forward not even a quarter of an inch." See Foley Aff., Ex. B at 13; see also Mac Truong Aff., Ex. 14.

In October 2001. "The Government of Vietnam" ("Vietnam"), allegedly represented by Richard Zweig, intervened in the state court action. That court noted that Vietnam had a "plausible claim to the disputed assets" based on the VCSA. See Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 22 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000). Vietnam filed cross-claims against all parties in October 2001 and in March 2002 filed an amended cross-claim seeking a declaratory judgment that it was the rightful owner of the Funds.

On September 26, 2002, the New York court dismissed Vietnam's claim to the Funds since Zweig had neither provided documentation nor depositions that the court ordered to prove that he in fact represented Vietnam. See Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 3, 8 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Sept. 26, 2002). The court also directed Schwab to turn the Funds over to Vishipco Lines and Dai Nam and [*9] granted Schwab attorney's fees of $14,151.50 (Id. at 7-8, 10).

In response, Mac Truong filed the six complaints presently before this Court, alleging that (1) Schwab improperly handled plaintiffs' assets and (2) Schwab and its attorneys illegally transferred, and conspired to transfer, plaintiffs' assets to other parties through misrepresentation and false pretenses. At the end of October 2002, Truong also filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in the District of New Jersey alleging the same claims, but adding the law firm of Sills, Cummis, Radin, Tischman, Epstein Gross — Schwab's local counsel in New Jersey in the Mac Truong bankruptcy petition — as an additional defendant.

On November 19, Schwab moved by order to show cause for the relief it seeks here and on December 5, 2002, the Court held oral argument on that motion.

II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review

In reviewing a motion to dismiss a complaint, a court must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and must read the pleadings in the light most favorable to, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of, the non-moving party. See Weinstein v. Albright, 261 F.3d 127 131 (2d Cir 2001); [*10] Bolt Elec., Inc. v. City of New York, 53 F.3d 465. 469 (2d Cir. 1995). Dismissal of the complaint is only proper when "it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99. 102, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957). The review is limited, and "the issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Villager Pond, Inc. v. Town of Darien, 56 F.3d 375. 378 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 40 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1974)). The Court's function on a motion to dismiss a complaint is "not to weigh the evidence that might be presented at trial but merely to determine whether the complaint itself is legally sufficient." Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059, 1067 (2d Cir. 1985).

B. Collateral Estoppel

Pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Act, "judicial proceedings of any court of any State . . . shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States. [*11] . . . as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State . . . from which they are taken." 28 U.S.C. § 1738. "If the proceedings of a state trial court comported with due process, every federal court must afford the final judgment entered therein the same preclusive effect it would be given in the courts of that state." Conopco v. Roll Intern., 231 F.3d 82. 87 (2d Cir 2000) (citing Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Rd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81, 85, 104 S. Cr. 892, 79 L. Ed. 2d 56 (1984)). Pursuant to New York law, collateral estoppel "prevents a party from relitigating an issue decided against that party in a prior adjudication. It may be invoked to preclude a party from raising an issue (1) identical to an issue already decided (2) in a previous proceeding in which that party had a full an fair opportunity to litigate," and (3) "the issue that was raised previously must be decisive of the present action." Curry v. City of Syracuse, 316 F.3d 324, 331 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Fuchsberg Fuchsberg v. Galizia, 300 F.3d 105, 109 (2d Cir. 2002); LaFleur v. Whitman, 300 F.3d 256, 271 (2d Cir. 2002)). [*12] We now turn to the tripartite test of Curry.

1. Was the Issue Presently Before the Court Already Decided in the Prior Proceeding?

The issue of whether Schwab wrongfully took or withheld funds rightfully belonging to Mac Truong is present here and was also present in New York state court. Plaintiffs contend that the state court litigation involved the issue of Mac Truong's commission for his services rendered to Vishipco, while the "main issue" of the present actions is "Schwab's failure to return" to plaintiffs their assets deposited with Schwab. Pl. Opp. at 8-9; Compl. PP 24, 27, 30.

However, at New York Supreme Court, Mac Truong alleged, in 13 causes of action, that "Schwab is wrongfully withholding funds which rightfully belong to [Mac Truong]." Truong v. Charles Schwab. No. 604650/97, slip op. at 5 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000). Those funds are the same Funds that are in dispute in the present action. See Id. at 24-25; Pl. Opp. at 9-10. The state court then determined, at summary judgment, that Schwab (1) had authority to maintain control over the accounts, (2) took "appropriate steps" to restrict Mac Truong's access to the accounts, (3) did not make material [*13] misrepresentations to the court and (4) did not abuse the judicial process. See Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 6-10, 12 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000). The state court also declared Vishipco Lines and Dai Nam "the lawful owners of the interpleaded assets." Id. at 23. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, additionally confirmed that "it is clear as a matter of law . . . the motion court properly found that plaintiff [i.e., Mac Truong] was not entitled to any portion of the disputed funds as a commission." Truong. 289 A.D.2d at 99. Therefore, the New York courts have conclusively determined that not only did Schwab properly handle the Funds and properly denied plaintiffs access to the Funds, but also that Mac Truong had no right to any portion of the Funds.

Accordingly, the first requirement, "that the issue being raised in the present case is identical to an issue that has already been decided in a previous adjudication," has been satisfied. Curry. 316 F.3d at 331-32.

2. Did Plaintiffs Have a Full and Fair Opportunity to Litigate in the Prior Proceeding?

To determine whether a party had a full and fair [*14] opportunity to litigate,

"'the various elements which make up the realities of litigation.' should be explored, including 'the size of the claim, the forum of the prior litigation, the use of initiative, the extent of the litigation, the competence and experience of counsel, the availability of new evidence, indication of a compromise verdict, differences in the applicable law and foreseeability of future litigation."

Curry, 316 F.3d at 332 (citing Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Assocs., P.C., 274 F.3d 706, 734 (2d Cir. 2001)).

The "various elements which make up the realities of litigation" all point to the conclusion that plaintiffs have had a completely full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in these actions in the state court forum. First, Mac Truong had competent and experienced counsel throughout. He was initially represented in New York state court by Harry Fractenberg, but has appeared pro se since October, 1998. See Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 60465097, slip op. at 5-6 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000). There is no indication in the record that Mr. Fractenberg was not "competent and experienced counsel," [*15] and Mac Truong, though appearing pro se, has, by his own admission, "practiced law for more than 20 years" and "commenced and finished with success over 15000 legal actions or proceedings." Mac Truong Aff. P 2.

As to the "use of initiative" and "the extent of the litigation," this Court noted more than two years ago in Vitranschart, Inc. v. Levy that the litigation stemming from the dispute of ownership of the Funds "has spanned two continents, repeatedly involved both the New York State and federal judicial systems, and led to many judicial opinions." Vitranschart, Inc. v. Levy, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12609, No. 00 Civ. 3618, 2000 WL 1239081, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2000). See also Truong v. Schwab, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2533, 2002 WL 1159668 at *1 ("The case, now its fifth year of litigation, is remarkable . . . for the eagerness of several of the parties to tax the time and resources of both the state and federal court systems in a tireless effort to avoid an unfavorable resolution."). As noted above, this dispute has even crossed the Hudson River and entered the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. See Foley Aff, Ex. B. As to "the forum of the prior litigation," it is manifest [*16] that the New York State and federal court systems have provided plaintiffs with a full panoply of procedural rights and thoughtful consideration of the legal contentions. In sum, plaintiffs have very much had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this issue.

3. Is the Issue Raised Previously Decisive in the Present Actions?

An issue is "'decisive in the present action' if it would prove or disprove, without more, an essential element of any of the claims set forth in the complaint." Curry, 316 F.3d at 332 LaFleur, 300 F.3d at 273-74. The issue of whether Schwab wrongfully took or failed to return money rightfully belonging to Mac Truong is decisive of the present action. Even if the Funds belonged to plaintiffs, the New York state court, as discussed previously, has already determined that Schwab's exercise of authority over the funds was legal, as was Schwab's decision to restrict Mac Truong's access to the Funds. Therefore, the issue before this Court — whether Schwab wrongfully took or withheld funds rightfully belonging to Mac Truong — was raised previously and decided previously in the New York state courts, and is decisive in the present [*17] action.

4. Privity

Pursuant to New York law, "collateral estoppel binds not only the parties to the suit but also their privies." Conle v. Justice, 996 F.2d 1398. 1402 (2d Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). "Among other things, privity has been held to include those who, although not actual parties, exercise practical control over an action." Id. Courts look to a totality of circumstances to determine the issue of control, including (1) representation by the same attorney, (2) whether the parties to be bound "relate directly to the identical property interest at issue in the prior action" and (3) whether there is an indication that "the prior action was 'managed as [the party bound] thought it should be.'" Id. at 1402-03 (citations omitted); Christopher D. Smithers Foundation, Inc. v. St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hosp. Center, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 373, 00 Civ. 5502, 2003 WL 115234, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2003) ("The presence of a single driving force behind both lawsuits creates sufficient identity between the parties for collateral estoppel to apply.") (citing Alpert's Newspaper Delivery, Inc. v. New York TimesCo., 876 F.2d 266, 270 (2d Cir. 1989)).[*18]

Each of the factors set forth in Conte to help determine whether the plaintiffs are in privity with each other for purposes of collateral estoppel are met here. First, plaintiffs in the present actions are all represented by the same attorney, namely Mac Truong, including Mac Truong himself. Second, the Funds are the identical "property interests at issue" as in the prior state court actions. See Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 24-25 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000); Pl. Opp. at 9-10 (which list the identical accounts). Third, the parties in the present actions are Mac Truong, his wife — Maryse Mac Truong, his son — Hugh Mac Truong, and his daughter — Thulinh Mac Truong. It is certainly likely that Mac Truong and his family believe that he managed the state court actions properly; in any event, there is no indication that they believe otherwise. Given the "totality of circumstances," there is indeed "the presence of a single driving force" — Mac Truong — behind the state actions and the present actions such that collateral estoppel binds not only Mac Truong, but also the other plaintiffs to these present actions.⁵

5 In addition, Mac Truong's purported representation of Vishipco is premised on the assertion that Vishipco is the "property of the current government of Vietnam." Compl. P 9. However, the Second Circuit determined in 1981 that the Vietnamese government was not the successor in interest to Vishipco. See In Vishipco Line, 660 F.2d at 862; see also Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 20 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000). In other words, Vishipco is not "the property of the current government of Vietnam" and Truong's purported representation is suspect. Regardless, the entity known as "the Government of Vietnam" already purported to intervene in the New York state actions. See Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 1, 4 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Oct. 5, 2001). Therefore, as a party to the state actions, "the Government of Vietnam," in the guise of Vishipco, that Mac Truong allegedly represents in 02 Civ. 7823 — one of the six present actions — is precluded by collateral estoppel from relitigating issues in the present action.

[*19] C. Res Judicata

Pursuant to New York law, the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, provides that "[a] final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action." Maharaj v. Bankamerica Corp., 128 F.3d 94. 97 (2d Cir. 1997). "The policy against relitigation of adjudicated disputes is strong enough generally to bar a second action even where further investigation of the law or facts indicates that the controversy has been erroneously decided, whether due to oversight by the parties or error by the courts." Legal Aid Society v. City of New York, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10053, No. 96 Civ. 5141, 1997 WL 394609, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 1997) (citation omitted).

New York utilizes a "'transactional approach' to res judicata; thus 'once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy.'" Yoon v. Fordham Univ. Faculty and Administrative Retirement Plan. 263 F.3d 196, 200 (2d Cir. 2001); Ferris v. Cuevas, 118 F.3d 122, 126 (2d Cir. 1997). [*20] "Under [New York's transactional] analysis, a variation in the facts alleged, legal theories asserted, or relief sought in the new pleading generally will not affect the result, because separately stated causes of action 'may nevertheless be grounded on the same gravamen of the wrong upon which the action is brought.'" Yoon, 263 F.3d at 201 (citations omitted).

Here, plaintiffs bring three causes of actions: (1) improper handling of plaintiffs' accounts, (2) restricting plaintiffs' access to their property through misrepresentations or false pretenses and (3) conspiring to restrict plaintiffs' access to their property through misrepresentations or false pretenses. The September 26, 2002 New York County Supreme Court decision in the two consolidated state court cases resulted in a valid final judgment — as the parties conceded at the December 5, 2002 oral argument — and neither party has appealed that judgment. Applying New York's transactional analysis, it is clear that these actions are "grounded on the same gravamen of the wrong" as the state actions. The state court actions were grounded in the claim that Schwab restricted Mac Trong's access to the Funds. [*21] The present actions are similarly grounded in the claim that Schwab restricted access to the Funds. That the present actions allege the involvement of additional defendants, namely Schwab's attorneys, does not alter the fact that the transaction underlying both state and federal actions is the same.

Plaintiffs contend that, even if res judicata applies to Mac Truong, res judicata is not applicable because the present action involves Hugh Mac Truong, Thulinh Mac Truong and Maryse Mac Truong, who were not involved in the state actions. However, "res judicata bars future litigation between the same parties, or those in privity with them, on the same cause of action." Ferris, 118 F.3d at 126. As discussed above, plaintiffs are either in privity with Mac Truong or were directly involved in the state actions. Therefore, plaintiffs are prevented from filing these six federal actions, which are based on the same causes of action as in state court.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that the present actions are new and distinct from those alleged in state court, there is no reason why these issues could not have been raised in New York state court. Plaintiffs contend [*22] that these six actions could not have been brought previously because Schwab continued to withhold the Funds subsequent to the state court's final judgment of September 26, 2002. However, such withholding of the Funds by Schwab clearly arises "out of the same transaction or series of transactions" as at state court and are thus barred from adjudication here.

In addition, plaintiffs contend that res judicata does not apply because there is a material fact in dispute as to whether there has been, or need be, an accounting of the Funds. In April 2000, the New York state court ordered a "long accounting" of the Funds. See Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 24-25 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000). However, on September 26, 2002, the state court, after recognizing the state appellate decision holding that Mac Truong "was not entitled to any portion of the disputed funds as a commission," determined that an accounting was not necessary, and directed the Funds be turned over to Vishipco Lines and Dia Nam. See Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 7-8 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Sept. 26, 2002). Even were an accounting necessary — and there is no apparent reason why [*23] it should occur — any such error does not establish the "considerable injustice" necessary to require relitigation of the action. See Legal Aid, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10053, 1997 WL 394609 at *2 (citing Reilly v. Reid, 45 N.Y.2d 24, 28, 379 N.E.2d 172, 175. 407 N.Y.S.2d 646, 648 (1978) ("afterthoughts or after discoveries however understandable and morally forgivable are generally not enough to create a right to litigate anew")); 17 Vista Assocs. v. City of New York, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5410, 1996 WL 197762, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 1996) (no exceptional circumstances present that would result in such considerable injustice as to require a "less rigorous" application of res judicata).

Plaintiffs also claim that res judicata does not apply because the state courts lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to determine the ownership of the assets because the issue is a non-justiciable political question. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that the Second Circuit in its 1995 decision in To v. Rubin, 99 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 1995) (unpublished disposition) permanently enjoined the plaintiffs, of which Tran was allegedly one, from continuing to allege ownership of the assets blocked [*24] pursuant to the TWEA, except in the Southern District of New York.

As set forth previously, in 1975 the United States government blocked all assets of the Vietnamese government that were located in the U.S. until 1995 when the U.S. and Vietnam entered into a treaty pursuant to which the U.S. agreed to unblock these assets and release them to the Vietnamese government, except for the sum of $200 million, which it retained to compensate U.S. nationals.

However, the present assets in dispute, although blocked prior to 1995, were never released to the Vietnamese government, nor are they part of the $200 million compensation fund. In fact, the present assets are not the property of the government of Vietnam. See In Vishipco Line et al. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 660 F.2d 854, 862 (2d Cir. 1981). In Vishipco Line, Chase Manhattan Bank refused to pay certain funds to the plaintiffs in that action, including Vishipco, because they alleged that Vishipco had been "nationalized by the Vietnamese government and therefore cannot sue on [its] own behalf." Id. at 861. The Second Circuit rejected that argument, opining that "the record does not support [*25] the finding that the Vietnamese government became the successor in interest to the corporate plaintiffs [Vishipco]."⁶Id. at 862.

6 Specifically, the corporate plaintiffs in Vishipco Line were Vishipco Line, Ha Nam Cong Ty, Dai Nam Hang Hai C.T., Rang Dong Hang Hai C.T., Mekong Ship Co. Sarl, Vishipco Sarl, Thai Binh C.T., VN Tau Bien C.T., Van An Hang Hai C.T. and Cong Ty U Sao Mai, essentially Vishipco. See Vishipco Line, 660 F.2d at 854.

Therefore, as the Second Circuit had previously determined that Vietnam was not a successor in interest to Vishipco, and, correspondingly, that Vishipco could sue on its own behalf, it was certainly within the province of the state courts to determine whether Vishipco owned the disputed assets. See Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 3, 8 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Sept. 26, 2002); Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97, slip op. at 22 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. Apr. 3, 2000), af'd 289 A.D.2d 98, 735 N.Y.S.2d 15 (1st Dep't 2001) [*26]. Plaintiffs' arguments to the contrary are without merit.

As plaintiffs note, this Court took judicial notice that the Funds are assets "of former South Vietnamese shipping companies that were nationalized by the Vietnamese government after the fall of Saigon in 1975." Pl. Opp. at 16; Truong v. Schwab, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9795. No. 02 Civ. 2533, 2002 WL 1159668, at *1 (May 31, 2002). However, this Court did not decide, nor was it presented with the issue of, whether by nationalizing Vishipco, Vietnam became its successor in interest. As the Second Circuit and the state courts have already adjudicated this issue, it cannot be relitigated in this Court.

As this Court has determined that plaintiffs' claims are barred pursuant to the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata, it is not necessary to decide whether plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.⁷

7 Plaintiffs also contend that jurisdiction of these actions lies with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. At some point subsequent to filing a petition for bankruptcy in July 2001, Mac Truong purported to "remove" both the state actions and two federal actions pending before this Court to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New Jersey. However, on April 4, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court ordered that "each [action] be remanded to the respective Court in which it was pending," except that, given the automatic stay of court proceedings normally afforded to debtors, "enforcement of any State Court order shall abide further order of this court." Foley Aff., Ex. P. at 3, 4.

In October, 2002, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the Truongs bankruptcy petition, noting that Mac Truong had "done nothing to prove to this Court that this is anything more than just a piece of litigation that he has failed to use." Id. at 13-14. Therefore, regardless of whether the Bankruptcy Court ever had jurisdiction over the state and federal actions, such jurisdiction ended in October, 2002. Id. at 12-13 ("The cleaner and simpler thing for everybody to do is for this Court to simply dismiss the case and restore you [Schwab and counsel for Tran, Vishipco Lines and Dia Nam] to whatever [Mac Truong's] litigational strategy may be and let you go forward from there.").

[*27] D. Injunction Preventing Mac Truong from Filing Additional Actions Without Court Approval

Defendants request that this Court enjoin Mac Truong from filing any additional actions, in either his individual capacity as a party or as an attorney, against Schwab or its attorneys. "The issuance of a filing injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff 'abuses the process of the Courts to harass and annoy others with meritless, frivolous, vexatious or repetitive . . . proceedings.'" Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam), cert denied, 534 U.S. 833, 122 S. Ct. 81, 151 L. Ed. 2d44 (2001) (citations omitted); see also Maller v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 112 F.3d 69, 69 (2d Cir. 1997) (filing injunction may issue if numerous complaints filed are based on the same events); In re Sassower, 20 F.3d 42, 44 (2d Cir 1994); Pentagen Technologies Int'l, Ltd. v. United States, 172 F. Supp. 2d 464, 473-74 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

In determining whether to restrict the access of a litigant to the courts, the Second Circuit has enumerated a number of factors, including the parties' history of litigation [*28] and motive in pursuing the litigation, whether the party is represented by counsel, whether the party has caused needless expense to other parties or posed an unnecessary burden on the courts, and whether other sanctions would be adequate. See Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19, 24 (2d Cir. 1986); O'Diah v. New York City, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15507, 2002 WL 1941179, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2002); Fitzgerald v. Field, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17372, 1999 WL 1021568, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 1999). However, "ultimately, the question the court must answer is whether a litigant who has a history of vexatious litigation is likely to continue to abuse the judicial process and harass other parties." Safir, 792 F.2d at 24.

Mac Truong has abused the process of the Court in pursuing these actions. Over four years ago, Mac Truong filed a federal action in the Southern District of New York that asserted claims of conversion of the Funds against Tran and others, and sought a declaratory judgment stating "that the funds held by Schwab belong to Mac Truong."⁸ Vitranschart, Inc. v. Levy, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12609, 2000 WL 1239081, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. August 31, 2000). This Court, in (1) dismissing [*29] the third party complaint Mac Truong had brought against two state court justices who had ruled against his positions as well as his adversary's law firm, and (2) placing the action on the suspense docket due to ongoing state proceedings, opined that Mac Truong "has been enjoined by federal judges from bringing additional federal litigations and has sued two state judges who have adjudicated his state litigations on the grounds that they conspired with his adversary against him." 2000 U.S. Dist, LEXIS 12608, [WL] at *1. This Court then put Mac Truong on notice "that any further harassing or vexatious litigation by him will be subject to sanction." 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12609, [WL] at * 11.

8 Schwab was subsequently dismissed from the action by stipulation of the parties.

Since then, Mac Truong has been threatened with arrest by a judge for refusing to return some of the Funds that he had misappropriated, Transcript of Proceedings before Judge Gammerman, Truong v. Charles Schwab, No. 604650/97 (April 29, 2002); see also Foley Aff., Ex. J at 13, 15-16, attempted [*30] to "remove" the state and federal actions to a federal bankruptcy court, Foley Aff., Ex. P at 4, and filed seven complaints, six here and one in the District of New Jersey, that should not have been filed pursuant to the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. In October 2002, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Winfield, prior to dismissing Mac Truong's bankruptcy petition, noted that Mac Truong had a "penchant for filing litigation in any court within striking distance," and that he "has done nothing to prove to this Court that this [bankruptcy proceeding] is anything more than just a piece of litigation he has failed to use." Ex. B at 4, 13-14. In short, Mac Truong is a vexatious litigant who has continued to file numerous repetitive, meritless and frivolous actions despite past warnings by several courts.

Therefore, this Court has every reason to believe that Mac Truong is "likely to continue to abuse the judicial process and harass other parties," Safir, 792 F.2d at 24, and grants Schwab's request for an injunction against Mac Truong preventing him from filing any action, in any capacity, against Schwab or its attorneys. Mac Truong and those in privity with him [*31] may only file an action against Schwab or its attorneys after he has shown the court in which the action is to be filed a copy of the injunction and obtained that court's permission to file. See In re Martin-Trigona. 9 F.3d 226, 228-29 (2d Cir. 1993).

E. Sanctions

Defendants seek sanctions against Mac Truong pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, Rule 11 requires that "[a] motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests." As defendants did not file a separate motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11. defendants' motion is denied.

However, the Court may impose sanctions against Mac Truong pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which, unlike Rule 11, contains no separate motion requirement. See Ted Lapidus, S.A. v. Vann, 112 F.3d 91, 96 (2d Cir 1997) (Rule 11 sanctions require signed pleadings and motions while section 1927 "violations do not hinge on the presence of a paper."). See also Sassower v. Field, 973 F.2d 75, 80 (2d Cir. 1992) (holding that section 1927 sanctions are applicable to attorneys who represent themselves pro se [*32]). Mac Truong had notice and opportunity to object to the issuance of sanctions at the December 5, 2002 hearing before this Court, and his opposition papers neither oppose nor even refer to sanctions. See In re Ames Dept. Stores. Inc., 76 F.3d 66, 70 (2d Cir. 1996) ("Due process requires that courts provide notice and opportunity to be heard before imposing any kind of sanctions.") (italics in original).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, "any attorney . . . who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct." Such sanctioning is not to be taken lightly: section 1927 requires "a clear showing of bad faith on the part of an attorney, and that bad faith may be inferred only if actions are so completely without merit as to require the conclusion that they must have been undertaken for some improper purpose such as delay." Salovaara v. Eckert,222 F.3d 19, 35 (2d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted); Keller v. Mobil Corp., 55 F.3d 94, 100 (2d Cir. 1995) (bad [*33] faith or improper purpose is required to support a request for fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927). Accordingly, in order to impose sanctions pursuant to section 1927, "the trial court must find clear evidence that (1) the offending party's claims were entirely meritless and (2) the party acted for improper purposes." Revson v. Cinqque Cinque, P.C., 221 F.3d 71, 79 (2d Cir. 2000) (citing Agee v. Paramount Communications Inc., 114 F.3d 395, 398 (2d Cir. 1997)).

Here, plaintiffs' claims are completely meritless. As noted previously, this Court and others put Mac Truong on notice, over two years ago, that any further "harassing or vexatious litigation . . . will be subject to sanction." Vitranschart, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12609, 2000 WL 1239081 at *11. However, Mac Truong did not accede to this warning, and continued to file a multiplicity of lawsuits, including the six presently before the Court. After filing these lawsuits as unrelated actions, Mac Truong inundated the courts with spurious default judgment motions, orders to show cause and requests to file motions directing the courts to release the Funds to plaintiffs.⁹

9 See, e.g., Letter dated November 3, 2002, to Judges Hellerstein and Stein, re: Opposition to Defendants' Request to cancel hearing on issue of service of summons and complaint scheduled for November 12, 2002 by court order; Letters dated October 29, 2002, to Judges Sweet and Buchwald, respectively, re: Request for leave to make urgent order to show cause or motion for emergency relief; Letter dated October 23, 2002, to Judge Hellerstein, re: Request for leave to file default judgment or to make order to show cause or motion for emergency relief; Letter dated October 22, 2002 to Judge Stein, re: Request for leave to make order to show cause or motion. See also Order Deferring Default Judgment (Hellerstein, J.), dated October 31, 2002 (holding that proof of service upon defendants was insufficient and proof of default not "sufficiently reliable.")

[*34] Based on the prior decisions in state and federal courts, Mac Truong should have known that the issues and claims presently before this Court would be barred pursuant to the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. See Lipin v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA. 202 F. Supp. 2d 126. 140 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (sanctions granted where the plaintiff should have known that claims barred by collateral estoppel). Reformulating previously adjudicated claims as conspiracy is not sufficient to avoid sanctions. Id. (citation omitted). Likewise, plaintiffs should have known that their contentions that resolution of this dispute presented a "non-justiciable political question" or that a federal bankruptcy court in New Jersey somehow has jurisdiction over these actions, had "absolutely no chance of success under existing precedents." Shafii v. British Airways PLC, 83 F.3d 566, 570 (2d Cir. 1996) (ordering Rule 11 sanctions).

Given the utter lack of merit of Mac Truong claims, as well as the unreasonable and vexatious multiplicity of actions filed, this Court can only reasonably conclude that his actions were "undertaken for some improper [*35] purpose," such as harassing defendants and delaying the inevitable disposition of the Funds. See Oliveri v. Thompson. 803 F.2d 1265, 1273 (2d Cir. 1986) ("an award under § 1927 is proper when the attorney's actions are so completely without merit as to require the conclusion that they must have been undertaken for some improper purpose such as delay.").

Accordingly, this Court orders defendants to submit an affidavit within 10 days setting forth the total hours spent, services rendered, and hourly rates for services rendered in connection with defendants' present motion. Mac Truong may respond within 10 days thereafter.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, defendants' motion to dismiss the actions pursuant to collateral estoppel and res judicata is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaints with prejudice. Mac Truong is enjoined from commencing any new proceedings, as either a party or as counsel, against Schwab or its attorneys for claims relating to the transactions or occurrences alleged against these defendants in the complaints filed in these actions, without first obtaining permission from the [*36] court in which the action is to be filed and by showing that court a copy of the injunction. In addition, defendants are directed to submit an affidavit setting forth the total hours spent and legal services rendered and hourly fees for Schwab's counsel in connection with defendants' present motion.

SO ORDERED:

Exhibit 9

NOT FOR PUBLICATIONOPINIONAPPEARANCES:

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ______________________________________ : IN RE: : CHAPTER 7 Mac Truong and Maryse Mac Truong, : CASE NO.: 03-40283 (NLW) : Debtor. : ______________________________________: : Mac Truong, : : Plaintiff, : ADV. NO.: 03-2493 : v. : : Elaine Nguyen, : : Defendant, : ______________________________________: Susan P. Mahon, Esq. Cozen O'Connor One Newark Center Suite 900 Newark, NJ 01702 Attorney for Defendant, Elaine Nguyen Scott Simon, Esq. Levy Boonshaft. P.C. 477 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Mac Truong, Pro Se 327 Demott Avenue Teaneck, NJ 07666

This matter comes before the Court on a motion by Ms. Elaine Nguyen ("Nguyen") for dismissal of the complaint filed by Mac Truong ("Truong"). Truong, acting pro se, filed a complaint which seeks the following forms of relief: 1) the recovery of approximately $2,060,000.00 in alleged fraudulent transfers of Truong's property allegedly made at the request of Nguyen; and, 2) the addition of Steven P. Kartzman, Chapter 7 Trustee ("Trustee") as a necessary party to the pending adversary complaint ("Complaint"). Nguyen has moved to dismiss the Complaint insisting that it is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by Truong to re-litigate issues that were conclusively decided in a previous proceeding. She also argues that Truong lacks the standing to prosecute the Complaint. In addition, the Trustee has also filed a cross-motion asking that this Court partially dismiss the Complaint because Truong lacks standing to bring certain causes of action on behalf the estate.

This Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and § 157(a) and the Standing Order of Reference issued by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 23, 1984. This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(H). The following shall constitute the findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This present proceeding is but the most recent of a series of proceedings involving Truong which have consumed the time, energy and resources of the courts systems in two separate states. In the present adversary proceeding, Truong seeks relief under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) with regard to certain accounts previously maintained at Charles Schwab Co. ("Schwab"). Truong alleges that until in or about March 2003 he had a fifty percent (50%) ownership interest in the following accounts:

(1) Account No. 9090-7706 VISHIPCO LINE (containing assets worth about $100,000 in June 1997) (2) Account No. 9090-7708 VISHIPCO LINE (containing assets worth about $800,000 in June 1997) (3) Account No. 2664-3955 DAI NAM HANG HAI (containing assets worth about $270,000 in June 1997) (4) Account No. 9090-7712 VISHIPCO LINE (Formerly #9090-7706 and #9090- 7708) (containing assets worth about $1,400,000 in May 2000) (5) Account No. 2664-3974 DAI NAM HANG HAI (Formerly #2664- 3955) (containing assets worth about $660,000 in May 2000) Truong further claims that in or about March 2003, Nguyen caused Schwab to transfer the funds to her from Account Nos. 9090-7706, 9090-7708 and 2664-3955. These are the transfers which Truong seeks to avoid under 11 U.S.C. § 548. As recounted below, the funds in the various Schwab accounts and Truong's claim that the funds were wrongfully transferred have been the subject of prior litigation in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

I. New York State Court Proceedings

A. Supreme Court of The State of New York, Count of New York (April 3, 2000)

Truong filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York on September 10, 1997 (the "New York Court") against Schwab for damages resulting from Schwab's denial of access to funds in certain corporate and personal accounts. ("Schwab Accounts"). As the lawsuit progressed, Schwab filed an interpleader naming Tran Dinh Truong ("Tran"), Vishipco Lines and Dia Nam Hang Hai Congty Vishipco Line of Vietnam ("Dain Nam") as third-party defendants ("Third Party Defendants"). Thereafter, Tran asserted cross-claims against Truong including breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, conversion, and interposed a counterclaim against Schwab for negligence. In February 1998, Truong asserted a separate state court action, again in New York County, against Elaine Nguyen, Sang Kim Nguyen, Hung Thi Nguyen and Tran for fraud and conversion. The two actions were later consolidated by the New York Court under the theory that the two cases contained common questions of fact and law and substantial identity of parties (the "New York Action").

The parties in the New York Action sought to restrain the accounts of the other, each of which were maintained by Schwab. (Simon Aff., Ex. A, p. 4). By order dated September 12, 1997, and amended on September 26, 1997, the New York Court restrained both the corporate accounts and Truong's personal accounts until further order of the Court.Id.

The accounts in question were seven accounts maintained by Schwab: Account No. 9090-7712 Vishipco Lines; Account No. 2664-3974 Dia Nam Hang Congty Vishipco; 8932-5532 Mac Truong; 8932-5539 Mac Truong IRA; 8932-5542 Mac Truong Joint with Maryse Truong; 5816-3378 Custodial Account for Thulinh Mac Truong; and 5816-3382 Custodial Account for Hugh Mac Truong.

The New York Court, by Decision and Order dated April 3, 2000, found that the Third Party Defendants were the lawful owners of the interpleaded assets in the Schwab Accounts. Furthermore, the New York Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Third Party Defendants' cross-claims brought against Truong. Justice Cozier determined that "[b]ecause [Truong] had no ownership interest in any of the (10) Vishipco Line corporate entities at any time, his interest in any recovery on behalf of such entities was based solely on the Agency Agreement and powers of attorney granted by Tran as duly authorized representative and shareholder of the corporations. All of the interpleaded funds on deposit in the various Schwab accounts are traceable to the original recovery proceeds, together with interest, dividends and other accretions". (Simon Aff., Ex. A, p. 21).

The New York Court specifically found that the issues before it were "whether [Truong's] actions in (i) transferring corporate funds to his personal accounts without consent of his principal, (ii) failing to account to Tran or the corporations for the interpleaded funds, and (iii) repudiating the Agency Agreement and validity of the powers of attorney subsequent to recovery of the proceeds and issuance of the Treasury Department licences, constitute a breach of his fiduciary duties". Id. The New York Court determined that the record before it revealed that "[Truong] . . . acted in bad faith [and] in gross derogation of his fiduciary duties as agent and attorney-in-fact". Id. In connection with his finding, Judge Cozier ruled that" [Truong] . . . forfeited his right to compensation in the form of commissions or otherwise, effective upon his unlawful transfer of corporate funds into his personal accounts in or about August 1995". Id. at 22. Additionally, the New York Court denied Truong's cross-motion in its entirety.

B. Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department (December 2001)

Truong subsequently appealed the decision in the New York Action. His appeal was denied by the Appellate Division, First Department ("Appellate Division"). The Appellate Division found that the lower court had properly found that Troung had violated his fiduciary duties to the Third Party Defendants, and that Third Party Defendant were the rightful owners of the Schwab Accounts. See Mac Troung v. Charles Schwab Co., Inc., Sued Herein as Charles Schwab, Defendant andThird Party Plaintiff; Tran Dinh Truong et al., Third-Party Defendants, 289 A.D.2d 98, 735 N.Y.S.2d 15 (1^st Dep't 2001).

C. Supreme Court of The State Of New York, County of New York, Civil Term, Part 27 (September 25, 2002).

While the Federal Court actions described below were pending, the claims of Vitranschart to the funds in the Schwab Accounts were litigated in the state court. As part of the litigation, and as a result of Vitranschart failure to comply with a discovery order, Justice Gammerman dismissed Vitranschart's pleading, and inter alia, directed Schwab to distribute all of the funds held in the Schwab Accounts to the Third-Party Defendants in accordance with Justice Cozier's April 3, 2000 Order. In addition, Justice Gammerman specifically rejected an argument by Truong's attorney that Truong retained a claim on some of the funds that were transferred to the Third-Party Defendants. (Simon Aff., Ex. C).

II. New York Federal Court Proceedings

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (August 29, 2000)

Suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("Federal Court") on behalf of Vitranschart, Inc. against David M. Levy, Esq., Levy Boonshoft Lichtenberg, LLP, Truong Dinh Tran, Elaine Nguyen, Sang Kim Nguyen, Hung Thi Nguyen, Charles Schwab Co., and Mac Truong ("Vitranschart Litigation"). Vitranschart sought relief with respect to funds held in the Schwab Accounts. As to Truong, Vitranschart asserted that he had a duty to remit funds to it without delay. As to the other defendants, Vitranschart alleged that they acted to deprive Vitranschart of its interest in the Schwab Accounts, and that the law firm wrongfully purported to represent Vitranschart. In that proceeding, Truong filed counter claims and cross-claims against David M. Levy, Esq., Levy Boonshaft Lichtenberg, LLP, Truong DinhTran, Elaine Nguyen, Sang Kim Nguyen, Hung Thi Nguyen. Truong also filed a third-party complaint against Justice Barry A. Cozier (presiding over Truong's New York Action), Justice Harold Tompkins, and Levy Boonshoft Spinelli, P.C. The third party complaint also asserted various cross-claims against the other defendants.

The District Court dismissed the third party complaint against Justices Coizer and Tompkins, and Levy Boonshoft Spinelli, P.C.Vitranschart, Inc. v. Levy, 2000 WL 1239081 *1. The District Court further determined that the Third Party complaint was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and alternatively, barred by abstention principles because the New York Action was still pending Id. at *8.

The District Court also placed the proceeding on its suspense docket until resolution of the New York Action. After the New York Action, the District Court dismissed the Vitranschart Litigation by Decision and Order dated March 20, 2003. The District Court determined that the issues raised by Truong before it were based upon the same issues raised in the New York Action, and that principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel warranted dismissal. (Simon Aff., Ex. F, p. 12) (finding that "Plaintiffs' claims in the in Federal Action #1 and Federal Action #2 are barred pursuant to the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata").

DISCUSSION

The issues before this Court are: (1) whether a Chapter 7 debtor, rather than the case trustee, has the standing to prosecute a cause of action for a fraudulent transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548; and (2) whether Truong's Complaint can survive a motion to dismiss based on principals of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

A. Motion to Dismiss

A court "must accept as true all the material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the plaintiff." Trump Hotels Casino Resorts, Inc. v. Mirage Resorts Inc. et al., 140 F.3d 478, 483 (3d Cir. 1998). "A pro se complaint may be dismissed only if it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Milhouse v. Carlson et al., 652 F.2d 371, 373 (3d Cir. 1981) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).

B. Debtor's Standing to Prosecute a Fraudulent Transfer Cause of Action Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548.

As a threshold matter, this Court must first consider whether Truong has the requisite standing to bring his cause of action for the recovery of the alleged fraudulently transferred assets. Nguyen argues that a cause of action under 11 U.S.C § 548 can only be brought by a Chapter 7 trustee.

The filing of a bankruptcy petition creates an estate comprised of all of the property in which a debtor has any legal or equitable interest. 11 U.S.C. § 541. In a chapter 7 case, a trustee is appointed, and, granted broad authority under 11 U.S.C. § 704 to administer the bankruptcy estate. In fulfilling his role to administer the estate, a "trustee is granted complete authority and discretion with respect to the prosecution and defense of any litigation of the [d]ebtor's estate. 3 Collier On Bankruptcy, ¶ 323.01 at 323-2 (15^th ed. rev. 2005).

After the appointment of a trustee, "the debtor no longer has standing to pursue a cause of action which existed at the time the order for relief was entered." In re Brooks, 227 B.R. 891, 894 (Bankr. W.D.Mo. 1998). As a general rule, courts have held that "the trustee alone has standing to raise issues before the bankruptcy court and to prosecute appeals." In re Richman, 104 F.3d 654, 657 (4^th Cir. 1997). The rationale in granting a trustee the exclusive right to pursue causes of action on behalf of the estate is threefold. First, the courts have "noted a public policy interest in reducing the number of ancillary suits that can be brought in the bankruptcy context so as to advance the swift and efficient administration of the bankrupt's estate"Id. at 656-57; second, the trustee is "the representative of the bankrupt's estate and has the capacity to sue or be sued" Id.; and third, "[o]nce a cause of action becomes the property of the estate, the debtor may not bring suit on that action . . . ".Krank v. Utica Mut.Ins.Co., 109 B.R. 668, 669 (E.D.Pa. 1990). Consequently, when a trustee is appointed he or she is generally the only party vested with standing to bring a cause of action on behalf of the estate. In re Stinson, 221 B.R. 726, 731 (Bankr. E.D.Mich, 1998) (citing to In re Gulph Woods., 116 B.R. 423, 428 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 1990). See also Glenny v. Langdon, 98 U.S. 20 (1878) (right to bring a fraudulent transfer matter vests with a trustee).

Based on the trustee's statutorily defined role and the case authority just discussed, this Court finds that Truong lacks standing to prosecute a cause of action based on 11 U.S.C. § 548. Accordingly, the adversary proceeding must be dismissed.

C. Collateral Estoppel

Equally significant is the fact that Truong may not litigate in bankruptcy court the very same matters that have been litigated in the state and federal courts within the State of New York. The commencement of a bankruptcy case does not provide Truong with a new forum to re-litigate matters already decided.

As a preliminary matter, this Court must adhere to the requirements of the Full Faith and Credit Act in relation to decisions entered by any state court. In re General Motors Corp. Pick-UpTruck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, 134 F.3d 133, 142 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing to Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 373 (1996)). "Under Full Faith and Credit Act, federal court may not employ its own rules in determining effect of state judgments, but must accept rules chosen by state from which judgment is taken." Id. Given that the decision underlying this instant action was rendered by a New York court, this Court looks to New York law to determine whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies.

Under New York law, collateral estoppel works to "prevent a party from re-litigating an issue decided against that party in a prior adjudication. It may be invoked to preclude a party from raising an issue (1) identical to an issue already decided, (2) in a previous proceeding in which that party had a full an fair opportunity to litigate, and (3) the issue that was raised previously must be decisive of the present action. Curry v. City of Syracuse, 316 F.3d 324, 331 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Fuchsberg Fuchsberg v. Galizia, 300 F.3d 105, 109 (2d Cir. 2002); LaFleur v.Whitman, 300 F.3d 256, 271 (2d Cir. 2002).

Applying the three part test of Curry, the Court finds that Truong's complaint is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The first element is met because the allegations in Truong's complaint against Nguyen mirror the issues raised and decided in the New York Action before Justice Cozier. For example, Truong's cause of action in the New York Action was primarily concerned with determining whether he was the rightful owner of the Schwab Accounts, and whether Nguyen had fraudulently converted the assets in those said accounts. (Simon Aff., Ex. A, p. 24-26). In his Complaint, Truong again argues that "[t]hese accounts contained a total assets [sic] of about $2,060,000 in May 2000. These accounts do not contained [sic] any assets belonging to [Nguyen], and/or to which [Nguyen] may have a legitimate claim. At least half of the total assets belonged to debtor Mac Truong, the balance belonged to the Government of Vietnam, owner of Vishipco Lines company . . . ". (emphasis added) (Complaint ¶ 11). Since the issue of the lawful owner of the Schwab Accounts has already been decided in the New York Action, the first prong of the Curry test is met.

Turning to the second requirement for collateral estoppel, the record reveals that Truong did have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the New York Action. In fact, the record shows that when Truong was found not to be the lawful owner of the accounts held by Schwab, he sought reconsideration of Justice Cozier's decision. When that motion failed, Truong, filed an appeal of the New York Action. The Appellate Division, in denying Truong's appeal, stated specifically that:

"Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered on or about April 3, 2000, which inter alia, granted the motion of third-party interpleaded defendants-respondents for summary judgment on their cross claims for conversion, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, for an accounting and for declaration that Vishipco Lines and Dia Nam Hang Hai Congty Vishipco Line of Vietnam are the lawful owners of the interpleaded funds, and dismissing all cross claims against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs."

Mac Truong v. Charles Schwab Co., Inc., 289 A.D.2d 98, 735 N.Y.S. 2d 15, 15 (1^st Dep't 2001).

It is beyond doubt that the Truong had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues both before the trial court and the appellate court, and did fully exercise his rights.

The last element under Curry is whether the issues that were raised previously are "decisive" in the present action. Under New York law, an issue is "decisive in the present action if it would prove or disprove, without more, an essential element of any of the claims set forth in the complaint." Curry v. City of Syracuse, 316 F.3d 324. 332 (2d Cir. 2003).

In considering the issues presented in Truong's complaint, it is readily apparent that the issues found in the New Your Action are "decisive" to the issues raised in the present action. The claims raised in this adversary proceeding is that Nguyen fraudulently transferred the Schwab Accounts and that Truong is the rightful owner of said accounts. (Complaint ¶ 16-20). In the New York Action, the gravemen of the action was the entitlement to the funds in the Schwab Accounts. Truong's claims in the adversary proceeding are identical to his claims in the New York Action. In the New York Action, the court conclusively found that Truong was not the lawful owner of the Schwab Accounts and Truong's claims against all the Third-Party Defendants were dismissed. This determination, affirmed by the Appellate Division, precludes Truong from re-arguing the matter before this Court.

Since all of the elements of collateral estoppel are met, Truong is estopped from proceeding with the instant adversary proceeding.

D. Res Judicata

The Court is also required, by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to apply the judgments made by a state court in a subsequent federal court proceeding. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96 (1980) ("[J]udicial proceedings [of any court of any State] shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1738). As a result, this Court looks to the laws of New York in its determination in the applicability of the principals of res judicata.

"Res Judicata bars litigation of a claim that was either raised or could have been raised in a prior action, provided that the party to be barred had a full a fair opportunity to litigate the claim and the disposition was on the merits." Lanuto v. Constantine, 215 A.D.2d 946, 946, 627 N.Y.S.2d 144, 144 (3d Dep't1995). "Res Judicata and collateral estoppel relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication." Allen, 449 U.S. at 415. Truong was a party in the New York Action and is a party in the within adversary proceeding. He had ample opportunity to present his position in the New York Action with respect to claims against Nguyen. In fact, the record before this Court also demonstrates that Truong attempted to re-litigate the New York Action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. As recounted earlier in this decision, that Court dismissed Truong's efforts to relitigate the New York Action. Merely crossing the Hudson River cannot provide Truong with yet another opportunity to litigate matters already conclusively determined in the New York Action. The Court finds that the Truong had the opportunity, and, did in fact, exhaustively litigate the identical claims raised in the Complaint filed herein.

Because the Court has dismissed the adversary proceeding in its entirety, it does not reach the Trustee's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

CONCLUSION

As more fully set forth above, the motion by the Defendant is granted and the Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

Exhibit 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKMARYSE MAC-TRUONG and MAC TRUONG, ::Plaintiffs, :— against — : ORDER OF DISMISSAL: 00 Civ. 3490 (SAS)HAROLD TOMPKING, LEWIS LINDENBERG, :ROBERT GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT GOLDBERG, :KERRI LUTZ, JOSEPH FARCA, BORAH, :GOLDSTEIN, ALTSCHULER SCEWARTZ, :P.C., WILLIAM COULTAUS, :JUERGEN OSMERS, BROADWHITE :ASSOCIATES, a New York Limited :Partnership, and BARRY A. COZIER, ::Defendants. :

: On April 26, 2000, plaintiffs, appearing pro se, filed a Complaint in this Court seeking to overturn a judgment against them of more than $356,000 and sanctions against then of $11,000 issued by Justice Harold Tompkins of the New York State supreme Court. See Order, Mac-Truong et al. v. Tompkins, et al., No. 00 Civ. 3199 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2000) ("Order"). On May 6, 2000, I dismissed plaintiffs' Complaint because this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear their claims. See Id. I concluded that, because plaintiffs essentially sought review of Justice Tompkins' final judgment, their claim was prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See id.; see also Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983).

On May ___, 2000, the day my Order was filed, plaintiffs, again appearing pro se, filed the Complaint in this action. Although virtually identical to the first Complaint, the second Complaint contains a few new wrinkles. First, the second Complaint adds four new defendants — Robert Goldberg, Kerry Lutz, and Joseph Farca, all of the law firm of Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler Schwartz, P.C., and Justice Barry A. Cozier of the New York State Supreme Court. Second, the jurisdictional section of the second Complaint notes that plaintiffs are making four challenges to New York State laws or judicial procedures. Third, the second Complaint includes a section entitled "United States District Court's Subject-Matter Jurisdiction in this Action is not Barred by the 'Rooker-Feldman' Doctrine." Fourth, the second Complaint omits plaintiffs' request to vacate and set aside the judgment issued by Justice Tompkins and instead seeks only money damages and sanctions.

For the reasons set forth in my original Order, all of plaintiffs' identical claims in the second Complaint are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Order. Plaintiffs' constitutional challenges, which were not raised in the first Complaint, must also be dismissed. Although the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply to general constitutional challenges to state rules or laws, plaintiffs' challenge here is merely another attempt to overturn a state court judgment. As the Feldman Court explained:

United States District Courts . . . have subject matter jurisdiction over general challenges to state bar rules, promulgated by state courts in non-judicial proceedings, which do not require review of a final state court judgment in a particular case. They do not have jurisdiction, however, over challenges to state court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state court's action was unconstitutional.

Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486; see also Johnson v. Smithsonian Institution, 189 F.3d 180, 187 (2d Cir. 1999) ("The Rooker-Feldman doctrine . . . bars federal courts from considering claims that are 'inextricably intertwined' with a prior state court determination.") (quoting Feldman). A review of the second Complaint makes clear that, despite their inclusion of constitutional challenges, plaintiffs still seek to overturn the state court judgment. The causes of action are the same as the first Complaint and the requested relief addresses actions allegedly taken by defendants in the state court proceeding. Plaintiffs added the constitutional challenges to the second Complaint in a transparent and futile attempt to evade the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as evidenced by the fact that those challenges are mentioned only in the jurisdictional and Rooker-Feldman sections. See Johnson, 189 F.3d at 187 ("Here, the plaintiff seeks in effect to set aside the state court's order. That he cannot do in a federal district court."); Pal v. Garvey, No. 98 Civ. 4900, 1998 WL 427677, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 1998) (holding that court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because "[p]laintiff seeks, in essence, federal review of the Family Court judgment terminating her visitation rights.").

For the same reasons, plaintiffs' removal of their demand that the state court judgment be vacated and set aside does not save them from the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Thus, according this pro se Complaint the close and sympathetic reading to which it is entitled, see Haines v.Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam), it reveals no basis for the Court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.See FW/PBS. Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) (court has an independent duty to examine the basis for jurisdiction); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Accordingly, the Complaint, filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), is dismissed for failure to state a claim over which the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). In order to prevent a third attempt by plaintiffs to have this Court review the state court judgment against them, their claims are dismissed with prejudice. See Jones v. Trump, Nos. 96 Civ. 2995, 96 Civ. 6927, 1997 WL 277375 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 1997) (denying claims with prejudice because those claims were "an attempt to use the courts to harass defendants through a continued course of vexatious litigation"), amended on reconsideration, 917 F. Supp. 783 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).

In addition, plaintiffs are enjoined from filing any new lawsuits related to the state court action without prior leave of this Court. This Court has the power to issue such injunctions where a party has established "[a] history of litigation entailing vexation, harassment and needless expenses to other parties and an unnecessary burden on the courts and their supporting personnel." Martin-Trigona v. Lavien, 737 F.2d 1254, 1262 (2d Cir. 1984) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Plaintiff Mac Truong, an attorney admitted to the bar of the State of New York since 1982, demonstrated his familiarity with the Rooker-Feldman doctrine by attempting to evade that doctrine in his second Complaint — As both my earlier Order and this Order make clear, this Court cannot review the judgment against him. Any further attempts to seek such review would constitute vexatious and harassing litigation. If plaintiff does attempt to file any new lawsuits related to the state court action, he exposes himself to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. See Margo v. Weiss, Nos. 98-9606, 99-7081, 2000 WL 664353, at *B (2d Cir. May 22, 2000) ("[B]efore a lawyer is sanctioned, he or she must receive specific notice of the conduct alleged to be actionable and the standard by which that conduct will be assessed, and he or she must have an opportunity to be heard on that matter.").

In unrelated cases, other members of this Court have either enjoined Truong from filing additional lawsuits or warned him about harassing litigation. See To v. Bentsen, No. 93 Civ. 6241, 1995 WL 86422, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 1995) (Mac Truong appearing for plaintiffs) ("Plaintiffs and any person acting on their behalf are therefore enjoined from filing an action involving the blocked assets in any federal or state court of the United States other than the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York without prior leave of this Court."), aff'd, 99 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 1995); see also In re New York International Hostel, Inc., Nos. 88-B-11126, 92-9706A, 95 Civ. 8475, 1997 WL 633522, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 1997) ("On July 10, 1995, Judge Brozman of the Bankruptcy Court . . . warned Minhlong's counsel, Mac Truong, Esq., that if he persisted in repetitive litigation, she would not hesitate to impose sanctions. Ignoring the Bankruptcy Court, Minhlong filed this appeal.").

I certify that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. SeeCoppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 442-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

SO ORDERED: ______________________________ Shira A. Scheindlin U.S.D.J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKMARYSE MAC-TRUONG and MAC TRUONG, ::Plaintiffs, ::— against — : AMENDED ORDER OF DISMISSAL: 00 Civ. 3490 (SAS)HAROLD TOMPKINS, LEWIS LINDENBERG, :ROBERT GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT GOLDBERG, :KERRY LUTZ, JOSEPH FARCA, BORAH, :GOLDSTEIN, ALTSCHULER SCHWARTZ, :P.C., WILLIAM COULTAUS, :JUERGEN OSMERS, BROADWHITE :ASSOCIATES, a New York Limited :Partnership, and BARRY A. COZIER, ::Defendants. : On May 30, 2000, this Court dismissed plaintiffs' Complaint because the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Order, Mac-Truona et al. v. Tompkins, et al., No. 00 Civ. 3490 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2000) ("Order"); see also Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983). The Order noted that, although plaintiffs included constitutional challenges in their Complaint, they still essentially sought to overturn the state court judgment. See Order at 2-3 ("Plaintiffs added the constitutional challenges to the . . . Complaint in a transparent and futile attempt to evade the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as evidenced by the fact that those challenges are mentioned only in the jurisdictional and Rooker-Feldman sections.").

The same day, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. Although virtually identical to the original Complaint, the Amended Complaint did include a new cause of action and request for declaratory relief related to the constitutional challenge. But plaintiffs cannot get around the Rooker-Feldman doctrine by adding three new paragraphs to a 92-paragraph complaint. It is clear that plaintiffs still merely seek to have this Court review the state court judgment against them. As with the original Complaint, plaintiffs' constitutional challenges in the Amended Complaint are inextricably intertwined with the state court judgment against them. See Johnson v. Smithsonian Institution, 189 F.3d 180, 187 (2d Cir. 1999) ("The Rooker-Feldman doctrine . . . bars federal courts from considering claims that are 'inextricably intertwined' with a prior state court determination.") (quoting Feldman). Thus, nothing in plaintiffs' Amended Complaint leads this Court to vacate its Order dismissing this case. See Order at 3-4.

After issuing that Order, the Court received a letter from plaintiff Mac Truong. In his letter, Truong asks this Court to reconsider its decision to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, arguing that a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be with prejudice. On this point, Truong is correct. See Hernandez v. Conriv Realty Associates, 182 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Article III deprives federal courts of the power to dismiss a case with prejudice where federal subject matter jurisdiction does not exist."). Accordingly, the Order issued on May 30, 2000 is amended to reflect that plaintiffs' Complaint (now Amended Complaint) is dismissed without prejudice.

Truong also asks the Court to reconsider its decision to enjoin plaintiffs from filing any new lawsuits related to the state court action without prior leave of this Court. See Order at 4-5. Although Truong argues that he does not have a history of filing repetitive actions that would merit injunctive relief, the Order makes clear that, to the contrary, "other members of this Court have either enjoined Truong from filing additional lawsuits or warned him about harassing litigation.". See Order at 5 n. 2. Nevertheless, it was Truong's conduct in this case that formed the main basis for my determination that injunctive relief was required. See Order at 4-5. Indeed, Truong's recent conduct only reaffirms the need for an injunction in this case, because plaintiffs' Amended Complaint reflects yet another attempt to evade the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. As a result, the terms of my original Order remain in effect and plaintiffs must abide by them. See Order at 4-5.

At the same time, I note that although plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint the same day this Court issued its Order, plaintiffs could not have known about the Order, which was mailed to them. Therefore, plaintiffs did not violate this Court's injunction by filing an Amended Complaint.

If plaintiffs attempt to evade the Rooker-Feldman doctrine a third time, Truong, an attorney admitted to the bar of the State of New York since 1982, exposes himself to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. See Margo v. Weiss, Nos. 98-9606, 99-7081, 2000 WL 664353, at *8 (2d Cir. May 22, 2000) ("[B]efore a lawyer is sanctioned, he or she must receive specific notice of the conduct alleged to be actionable and the standard by which that conduct will be assessed, and he or she must have an opportunity to be heard on that matter.").

I certify that under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 442-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. For plaintiffspro se)For defendants Harold Tompkins and Barry Cozier:For defendants Lewis Lindenberg, Robert Goldstein, Joseph Farca,Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler Schwartz, P.C., William Coltaus, JuergenOsmers, and Broadwhite Associates:

SO ORDERED: ______________________________ Shira A. Scheindlin U.S.D.J. (: Mac Truong, Esq. 325 Broadway New York, NY 10007 (212) 566-6000 Carolyn Cairns Olson, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271-0332 (212) 416-8595 Lewis A. Lindenberg, Esq. Joseph Farca, Esq. Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler Schwartz, P.C. 377 Broadway New York, NY 10013-3993 (212) 431-1300 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKMARYSE MAC-TRUONG and MAC TRUONG, ::Plaintiffs, ::— against — : ORDER: 00 Civ. 3490 (SAS)HAROLD TOMPKINS, LEWIS LINDENBERG, :ROBERT GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT GOLDBERG, :KERRY LUTZ, JOSEPH FARCA, BORAH, :GOLDSTEIN, ALTSCHULER SCHWARTZ, :P.C., WILLIAM COULTAUS, :JUERGEN OSMERS, BROADWHITE :ASSOCIATES, a New York Limited :Partnership, and BARRY A. COZIER, ::Defendants. : Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of this Court's Amended Order of Dismissal, dated June 7, 2000, holding that their claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Amended Order,Mac-Truong et al. v. Tompkins, et al., No. 00 Civ. 3490 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2000) ("Amended Order"). Because plaintiffs have not identified controlling decisions or material facts overlooked by the Court, their motion for reconsideration is denied. See Shrader v. CSX Transportation. Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995) ("The standard for granting . . . a motion [for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked — matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.").

Nevertheless, plaintiffs also ask this Court to reconsider its conclusion that an appeal from the Amended Order would be taken in bad faith. See Amended Order at 4 ("I certify under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith."). Although plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, they are not proceeding in forma pauperis. Because 28 U.S.C. § 1915 applies to in forma pauperis proceedings, this Court should not have certified that any appeal from the Amended Order would not be taken in good faith. In addition, the same certification should not have been included in this Court's prior orders in this case. See Order, Mac-Truong et al. v. Tompkins, et al., No. 00 Civ. 3199 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2000); Order, Mac-Truong et al. v. Tompkins, et al., No. 00 Civ. 3490 (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2000). Accordingly, all three orders are amended to remove that certification.

At this stage, plaintiffs must seek review of this Court's orders in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit or review of the state court judgment against them in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

SO ORDERED: ______________________________ Shira A. Scheindlin U.S.D.J. For plaintiffs (pro se)For defendants Harold Tompkins and Barry Cozier:For defendants Lewis Lindenberg, Robert Goldstein, Robert Goldberg,Kerry Lutz, Joseph Farca, and Borah, Goldstein,Altschuler Schwartz, P.C.:For defendants William Coltaus, Juergen Osmers, and BroadwhiteAssociatesUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT : Mac Truong, Esq. 325 Broadway New York, NY 10007 (212) 566-6000 Carolyn Cairns Olson, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271-0332 (212) 416-8595 Lewis A. Lindenberg, Esq. Joseph Farca, Esq. Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler Schwartz, P.C. 377 Broadway New York, NY 10013-3993 (212) 431-1300 : Joseph J. Cooke, Esq. Flanagan, Cooke French, LLP 20 Exchange place New York, NY 10005 (212) 797-1215 District of New Jersey MLK Jr Federal Building 50 Walnut Street Newark, NJ 07102 Case No.: 03-40283-NLW Chapter: 7 Judge: Novalyn L. Winfield In Re: Debtor(s) (name(s) used by the debtor(s) in the last 8 years, including married, maiden, trade, and address): Mac Truong Maryse Mac Truong 327 Demott Avenue 327 Demott Avenue Teaneck, NJ 07666-0000 Teaneck, NJ 07666-0000 Social Security No.: xxx — xx — 1959 xxx — xx — 2551 Employer's Tax I.D. No.:

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER Pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9022

Please be advised that on February 14, 2008, the court entered the following judgment or order on the court's docket in the above-captioned case:

Document Number: 350 — 295

Opinion (related document: [347] Notice of Appeal to District Court. (related document: [339] Order (Generic), Order (Generic), [330] Document,). Receipt Number UNPAID, Fee Amount $255. Filed by Mac Truong, Maryse Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor's Attorney, Trustee, US Trustee. Signed on 2/14/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, 2, 3# (2) Exhibit 4, 5# (3) Exhibit 6, 7, 8# (4) Exhibit 9, 10) (djv,)

Parties may review the order by accessing it through PACER or the court's electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). Public terminals for viewing are also available at the courthouse in each vicinage.

In re Truong

Summary

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION

I.

II.

CONCLUSION

Exhibit 1

FACTS

DISCUSSION

The Chapter 7 Trustee is the "Real Party in Interest"

D) Statute of Limitations

Conclusion

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

CERTIFICATION

Exhibit 5

MAC TRUONG, DEBTOR, SWORN

CERTIFICATION

Exhibit 6

I. BACKGROUND

II. LEGAL STANDARD

III. DISCUSSION

C. Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Immunity

IV. CONCLUSION

Appearances

OPINION

OPINION ORDER

BACKGROUND

I. Automatic Stay

III. Colorado River Abstention

IV. Remaining Motions

OPINION

OPINION AND ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

II. DISCUSSION A. Standard of Review

B. Collateral Estoppel

E. Sanctions

III. CONCLUSION

Exhibit 9

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

I. New York State Court Proceedings

B. Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department (December 2001)

C. Supreme Court of The State Of New York, County of New York, Civil Term, Part 27 (September 25, 2002).

II. New York Federal Court Proceedings

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSION

Exhibit 10

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER Pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9022

In re Truong

In re Truong

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations