michael gerard fletcher (state bar no. 070849)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3787946.4 | 078410-0061 1 Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLASIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE

Michael Gerard Fletcher (State Bar No. 070849) [email protected] Craig A. Welin (State Bar No. 138418) [email protected] Hal Goldflam (State Bar No. 179689) [email protected]) FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C. 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Nineteenth Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2427 Telephone: (323) 852-1000 Facsimile: (323) 651-2577 Attorneys for Receiver ROBB EVANS AND ASSOCIATES LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESTERN DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v. JASON CARDIFF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA RECEIVER’S SIXTH REPORT RE CARDIFF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PRIOR COURT ORDERS AND RE FAILURE TO PURGE CONTEMPT Hon. Dolly M. Gee

TO: THE HONORABLE DOLLY M. GEE, JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

Comes now Robb Evans & Associates, LLC, the duly appointed Receiver in

this matter, and reports to the Court that the individual Cardiff Defendants, Jason

Cardiff and Eunjung Cardiff (collectively, “Cardiffs”) have failed and refused, and

continue to fail and to refuse, to pay any of the mortgage payments (and other

related preservation expenses) with respect to their Upland Residence, payment of

which this Court has previously ruled, if paid, could serve to “purge” some or all of

said Defendants’ prior contempt of this Court’s Orders, and cause the Court to

further postpone their incarceration as a sanction for such contempt.

Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 of 45 Page ID #:17690

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FRAN

DZE

L RO

BIN

S BL

OO

M &

CSA

TO, L

.C.

1000

WIL

SHIR

E BO

ULE

VARD

, NIN

ETEE

NTH

FLO

OR

LOS

ANG

ELES

, CAL

IFO

RNIA

900

17-2

427

(323

) 852

-100

0

I. Factual and procedural background. A. FTC Action; TRO; Preliminary Injunction.

On October 10, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a

Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief (“FTC Action,”

ECF No. 1) in connection with Defendants Jason Cardiff, Eunjung Cardiff, a/k/a

Eunjung Lee, a/k/a Eunjung No, Danielle Cadiz, a/k/a Danielle Walker, Redwood

Scientific Technologies, Inc. (California), Redwood Scientific Technologies, Inc.

(Nevada), Redwood Scientific Technologies, Inc. (Delaware), Identify, LLC,

Advanced Men’s Institute Prolongz LLC, Run Away Products, LLC, and Carols

Place Limited Partnership (collectively, “Defendants”) for false and unsubstantiated

claims for dissolvable film strips advertised for smoking cessation, weight loss, and

male sexual performance; a related autoship continuity program resulting in

unauthorized shipments and charges; abusive telemarketing through robo calls; and

unsubstantiated earnings claims for a multi-level marketing scheme.

That same day, the FTC filed its Ex Parte Application for (1) Temporary

Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should

Not Issue and (2) Order Waiving Notice Requirement. (Ex Parte TRO Application,

ECF No. 3.). Also that same day, the Court entered its Ex Parte Temporary

Restraining Order with Asset Freeze, Appointment of a Temporary Receiver, and

Other Equitable Relief, and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction

Should Not Issue (“TRO,” ECF No. 29).

The TRO, along with other Court directives, restrained and enjoined

Defendants and their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, and parties working in

concert or in participation with them, from “disposing of any Assets that are [...]

owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by any Defendant, including, but not

limited to, those for which a Defendant is a signatory on the account” (“Asset

Freeze”). (TRO 11-12). The TRO also enjoined each Defendant from causing the

“dissipation” of any Asset. (TRO VII A). Additionally, the Court ordered the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FRAN

DZE

L RO

BIN

S BL

OO

M &

CSA

TO, L

.C.

1000

WIL

SHIR

E BO

ULE

VARD

, NIN

ETEE

NTH

FLO

OR

LOS

ANG

ELES

, CAL

IFO

RNIA

900

17-2

427

(323

) 852

-100

0

appointment of Robb Evans & Associates, LLC (“Receiver”) as the temporary

receiver over the Defendants’ assets, and expressly ordered and authorized the

Receiver to, among other things, protect receivership assets, collect receivership

assets from third parties, and adjust receivership liabilities. (TRO 18-19).

The Cardiff Defendants were served with the TRO on October 12, 2018.

(Declaration of Service, ECF No’s. 38, 39). The Court first extended the TRO on

October 24, 2018, and on November 8, 2018, the Court entered a Preliminary

Injunction with Asset Freeze, Receiver, and Other Equitable Relief (“PI,” ECF No.

59),which, among other things, extended and expanded the operative terms of the

TRO, maintained the Asset Freeze and Receiver Appointment, as more fully set

forth therein and in the TRO through trial.

B. The Receiver is Authorized to Provide, and Has Provided, the Court with multiple Notices of Non-Compliance.

The TRO, the PI and other Orders of the Court issued herein order or

authorize the Receiver to perform various tasks for the Court, including an express

authorization to report to the Court any determination made by the Receiver that one

or more Defendant(s), or any third party, has failed to comply with, the TRO, the PI

or other Order of this Court. See TRO XVII, page 27, lines 9-12.

This filing constitutes the Receiver’s sixth such report of non-compliance

made to date in this case, and is supported by, among other things, the sworn

testimony/explicit admission of Defendant Jason Cardiff (attached as Exhibit 4 to

the accompanying Declaration of Brick Kane), as well as the pleadings, exhibits,

minutes, files and records of this action, expressly including those items taken from

the Court’s ECF Docket specifically referenced herein. The Receiver’s five (5)

previous reports of non-compliance were filed on (i) October 23, 2018 (ECF No.

206), (ii) July 2, 2019 (ECF No. 144), (iii) August 22, 2019 (Dots. 200; 201), (iv)

January 29, 2020 (ECF No. 273), and (v) April 30, 2020 (ECF No. 331),

respectively, which are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FRAN

DZE

L RO

BIN

S BL

OO

M &

CSA

TO, L

.C.

1000

WIL

SHIR

E BO

ULE

VARD

, NIN

ETEE

NTH

FLO

OR

LOS

ANG

ELES

, CAL

IFO

RNIA

900

17-2

427

(323

) 852

-100

0

C. The First Contempt Order. On June 17, 2019, the FTC filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause Why

Defendants Eunjung and Jason Cardiff and Third Party Jacques Poujade Should Not

Be Held in Contempt of the Court’s Preliminary Orders and Sanctioned Until They

Comply Fully with Those Orders (“First Contempt Motion”). (First Contempt

Motion, ECF No. 134). In the First Contempt Motion, the FTC established that

subsequent to the issuance of the TRO and PI, the Cardiffs worked in concert with

their friend and business partner, Jacques Poujade (“Poujade”), to improperly

transfer and hide assets subject to the Asset Freeze from the Receiver and the FTC.

The Court issued an OSC re Contempt (ECF No. 140), to which the Cardiffs

responded (ECF No. 147, 166). The Court then held a three-day hearing at which,

among other things, the Cardiffs testified. ECF No.’s 181, 182, 183, & 249. At the

conclusion of testimony, the Court found the Cardiffs in contempt (see, ECF No.

238, at 2), and stated, among other things: I would say of the 16 years I’ve been on the Federal Court, I’ve never presided over a matter where the fraud committed by the defendants was so clear, the deception so extreme. I’m astounded.

ECF No. 188-1, Tr. 389: 3-6. The court continued: I’ve heard carefully from the Cardiff’s. Their stories are totally unbelievable. It’s pretty clear to the Court that they’ve lied, that they worked in concert with each other and with others to avoid, violate the conditions of the orders of the Court.

ECF No. 188-1, Tr. 390: 3-7.

On October 29, 2019, the Court issued its Order holding the Cardiffs and

Poujade in contempt, and establishing the conditions under which such contempt

might be purged (First Contempt Order, ECF No.’s 237, 238). Among other

requirements, the Cardiffs were ordered to produce a “full and detailed accounting,

under oath, of all assets held by, for the benefit of, or otherwise controlled, directly

or indirectly, by Eunjung Cardiff or Jason Cardiff (or both) for the period from July

31, 2018 to the date of [the Contempt] Order [October 29, 2019].” ECF No. 238 at


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FRAN

DZE

L RO

BIN

S BL

OO

M &

CSA

TO, L

.C.

1000

WIL

SHIR

E BO

ULE

VARD

, NIN

ETEE

NTH

FLO

OR

LOS

ANG

ELES

, CAL

IFO

RNIA

900

17-2

427

(323

) 852

-100

0

4-5. As part of the accounting, the Cardiffs were required to, among other things,

identify “the source of each deposit/credit” to all relevant accounts. The Court

warned the Cardiffs that for each day they did not comply with the terms of the First

Contempt Order, they would/could be incarcerated. ECF No. 238 at 7.

D. Second Contempt Order. As the Court is aware, the Cardiffs did not comply with the First Contempt

Order. They: (1) failed to identify the source of the money that funded their

luxurious lifestyle; (2) dissipated assets subject to the asset freeze by spending freely

on extravagant personal and unapproved living expenses, as well as attorneys’ fees;

and (3) allowed their residence (one of the Receivership Assets) to waste by

refusing to pay the mortgage.

Accordingly, on March 2, 2020, the FTC filed another motion to show cause

why the Cardiffs should not be held in contempt of court and coercively

incarcerated until they complied. ECF No. 300. The Cardiffs filed their opposition

the next day. ECF No. 301.

On March 31, 2020, this Court again found the Cardiffs in contempt of the

TRO and PI’s provisions requiring that they disclose and account for their assets,

turn all assets over to the Receiver, and prevent the dissipation of those assets.

(“Second Contempt Order,” ECF No. 315 at 5). Rather than order coercive

incarceration at that time, the Court ruled that the Cardiffs could purge their

contempt if by April 30, 2020, they: • Identify the source of each and every cash deposit into a cash-funded credit union (FCCU) account; • To the extent Gerald Cardiff [Jason Cardiff’s father] is the source of any cash deposit into the FCCU account, identify each and every source from which he deposited funds into that account; • Turn over all Cardiff assets to the Receiver, including assets held abroad; and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FRAN

DZE

L RO

BIN

S BL

OO

M &

CSA

TO, L

.C.

1000

WIL

SHIR

E BO

ULE

VARD

, NIN

ETEE

NTH

FLO

OR

LOS

ANG

ELES

, CAL

IFO

RNIA

900

17-2

427

(323

) 852

-100

0

• Replenish the Receivership Estate for any and all unpaid mortgage payments on the Cardiffs’ residence, until the date of sale of that residence.

ECF No. 315 at 5 (emphasis added).

Since the issuance of the Second Contempt Order, the Cardiffs failed to

undertake to do, or do, items identified by the Court that could serve to “purge”

them of the contempt of Court set forth in the Second Contempt Order. Specifically,

the Cardiffs have failed to “replenish the Receivership Estate for any and all unpaid

mortgage payments” (or any amount) as required in the Second Contempt Order.

Instead, they filed a notice of appeal on April 7, 2020, (ECF No. 317), followed by a

motion in this Court for a stay pending appeal, which was denied (ECF No. 343).

Further, the Cardiffs have not complied with the orders of the Ninth Circuit about

their defective appeal of the Second Contempt Order. (See Kane Declaration, 9th

Circuit Appeal Docket, and no compliance with the clerk’s orders at Docket nos. 10

and 3).

The appeal has now been dismissed (ECF No. 362). II. Sixth Report of Non-Compliance: The Cardiffs’ Failure to Replenish the

Receivership Estate for required Mortgage Payments on Upland Residence.

As noted above, the Second Contempt Order held the individual Cardiff

Defendants in contempt of court for their willful dissipation of assets subject to the

Asset Freeze and for the other items set forth therein. The Court provided the

Cardiffs with an “out” for such contempt and indicated that the Cardiffs’ contempt

could be purged if, among other things, within 30 days thereof (i.e. by April 30,

2020), the Cardiffs: [R]replenish[ed] the Receivership Estate for any and all unpaid mortgage payments on the Upland Residence, until the date of the sale of the Upland Residence (as authorized by ECF No’s 306, 309).

Second Contempt Order, ECF No. 310, p. 5.

This Court has authorized the Receiver to list and sell, subject to further Court

order, the Cardiffs’ Upland Residence. (ECF No. 309). That process is underway.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FRAN

DZE

L RO

BIN

S BL

OO

M &

CSA

TO, L

.C.

1000

WIL

SHIR

E BO

ULE

VARD

, NIN

ETEE

NTH

FLO

OR

LOS

ANG

ELES

, CAL

IFO

RNIA

900

17-2

427

(323

) 852

-100

0

The Receivership Estate is depleted with every day that goes by without the

mortgage payments and related property expenses being paid by the Cardiffs.

Notwithstanding the opportunity given by the Court to the Cardiffs to purge their

contempt of court and avoid incarceration by replenishing the Receivership Estate

for mortgage payments on the Upland Residence while the Receiver markets and

sells it, Mr. Cardiff has flatly refused to take advantage of the Court’s generous

opportunity to avoid incarceration arguing that the PI “doesn’t require him” to make

any such payment to, or replenishment of, the Receivership Estate with respect the

Upland Residence. See Declaration of Jason Cardiff dated June 1, 2020, Kane

Declaration, Exhibit 4, at ¶ 5: As to the order that I ‘[r]eplenish the Receivership Estate for any and all unpaid mortgage payments on the Upland Residence, until the date of sale of the Upland Residence (as authorized by ECF Nos. 306, 309).’ I respectfully submit that the Preliminary Injunction does not require that I pay the receivership estate for the unpaid mortgage.”). [Emphasis Added].

While Cardiff refuses to address any obligation to replenish the Receivership

estate for the mortgage and other payments in arrears, and keep the mortgage

current, they nonetheless continue to “live high on the hog.” Attached to the Kane

Declaration as Exhibit 5 is a recent credit application for the lease of new Land

Rover Range Rover Sport, valued at about $84,000.

III. Conclusion. The Cardiffs have failed and refuse to comply with this Court’s order to

replenish the receivership estate for the accrued and accruing fees, costs, and

expenses regarding the mortgage on the Upland Residence. This, despite being

given extra time by this Court to do so, and having been provided with the exact

amount to pay prior to expiration of the deadline to do so. At the same time, they

continue to spend lavishly on their life style.


u ....:I 1¥

0 ~o

0-<['. E-<~N <(:X:'<!' tl) f-< N u~~

t<l .... ~ ... 0

t<l 0 ::;s2:mg oZ:So 0 ~- ~ ';' ~<0~ !:Q~~CX) tl)-'<c;) Z g u_ N -r:l:)ooM I=Q t<l '-'

0 ~ t;l ~ :X: " "' z ~ ::l < J:il~~ N 0 ....l Q 0 z 0 ~ .... ~

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DATED: July(b,2020

3787946.4 1 078410-0061

ROBB EVANS & ASSOCIATES LLC Acting in its capacity as the duly appointed receiver

By: ~-)'~ BRICK KANE President

8 Case No.5: 18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA SIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FRAN

DZE

L RO

BIN

S BL

OO

M &

CSA

TO, L

.C.

1000

WIL

SHIR

E BO

ULE

VARD

, NIN

ETEE

NTH

FLO

OR

LOS

ANG

ELES

, CAL

IFO

RNIA

900

17-2

427

(323

) 852

-100

0

DECLARATION OF BRICK KANE I, Brick Kane, declare as follows:

1. I am the President & Chief Operating Officer of Robb Evans &

Associates LLC (“REA”), initially the Temporary Receiver and subsequently the

Receiver in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this

declaration and, if I were called upon to testify as to those matters, I could and

would competently testify thereto based upon my personal knowledge.

2. I am one of the individuals with REA that has primary responsibility

for the day-to-day supervision and management of the receivership estate in this

case since REA first began to act as the Temporary Receiver on October 10, 2018,

pursuant the its Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order with Asset Freeze,

Appointment of a Temporary Receiver, and Other Equitable Relief, and Order to

Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (“TRO”). The TRO

covered numerous entities and individuals, including without limitation Jason

Cardiff and Eunjung Cardiff (collectively, “Cardiffs”), both personally and as

trustees of the Carol’s Place Trust (“Trust”).

3. On October 24, 2018, the Court entered its Preliminary Injunction with

Asset Freeze, Receiver, and Other Equitable Relief Against Redwood Scientific

Technologies, Inc. (CA), etc. Appointment of a Receiver, and Other Equitable

Relief, whereby the Court ordered that Robb Evans & Associates LLC shall

continue to serve as the Receiver of the Receivership Entities with full powers of an

equity receiver. (ECF No. No. 46).

4. On October 24, 2018, the Court entered its Order Extending Temporary

Restraining Order and Granting Continuance of Preliminary Injunction Hearing for

Defendants Jason Cardiff and Eunjung Cardiff and Ordering them to Return Assets.

(ECF No. 48).

5. On November 8, 2018, the Court entered its Preliminary Injunction

with Asset Freeze, Receiver, and Other Equitable Relief Against Jason Cardiff and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FRAN

DZE

L RO

BIN

S BL

OO

M &

CSA

TO, L

.C.

1000

WIL

SHIR

E BO

ULE

VARD

, NIN

ETEE

NTH

FLO

OR

LOS

ANG

ELES

, CAL

IFO

RNIA

900

17-2

427

(323

) 852

-100

0

Eunjung Cardiff (“Preliminary Injunction”), whereby the Court ordered that Robb

Evans & Associates LLC shall continue to serve as the Receiver of the Receivership

Entities and of the Assets of the Cardiffs, as more particularized therein, with full

powers of an equity receiver. (ECF. No. 59).

6. On March 16, 2020, this Court entered its Order authorizing the

Receiver to list and sell, subject to further Court order, the Cardiffs’ Upland

Residence. (ECF No. 309). That process is underway. The Receiver has listed the

Cardiffs’ Upland Residence for sale with a reputable real estate broker, who is

marketing the property and fielding offers.

7. Unfortunately, since the establishment of the Receivership, no

mortgage payments, and certain other essential payments, have been made with

regard to the Cardiffs’ Upland Residence, and the Receivership Estate is depleted

with every day that goes by without such mortgage payments and related property

expenses being paid by the Cardiffs.

8. During the pendency of this Case, this Court has twice found the

Cardiffs to have intentionally violated the TRO and Preliminary Injunction, and has

held them in Contempt of Court. [See, (i) First Contempt Order, ECF No.’s 237,

238; and Second Contempt Order, ECF No.315].

9. Rather than order the Cardiffs into immediate coercive incarceration in

connection with the Second Contempt Order, this Court instead graciously provided

the Cardiffs with the opportunity to avoid such incarceration, and to purge their

contempt, if by April 30, 2020, they: • Identify the source of each and every cash deposit into a cash-funded credit union (FCCU) account;

• To the extent Gerald Cardiff [Jason Cardiff’s father] is the source of any cash deposit into the FCCU account, identify each and every source from which he deposited funds into that account;

• Turn over all Cardiff assets to the Receiver, including assets held abroad; and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FRAN

DZE

L RO

BIN

S BL

OO

M &

CSA

TO, L

.C.

1000

WIL

SHIR

E BO

ULE

VARD

, NIN

ETEE

NTH

FLO

OR

LOS

ANG

ELES

, CAL

IFO

RNIA

900

17-2

427

(323

) 852

-100

0

• Replenish the Receivership Estate for any and all unpaid mortgage payments on the Cardiffs’ residence, until the date of sale of that residence.

ECF No. 315 at 5.

10. Since the issuance of the Second Contempt Order, the Cardiffs have

failed to undertake to do, or do, any of the items concerning the residence identified

by the Court that could serve to “purge” them of the contempt of Court as permitted

by the Court in the Second Contempt Order. First, they filed a notice of appeal on

April 7, 2020, (ECF No. 317), followed by a request to this Court for a stay pending

appeal (ECF No. 324), which was denied (ECF No. 343). Second, the Cardiffs’

defective appeal of the Second Contempt Order has been dismissed (ECF No. 362).

11. Third, the Cardiffs have wholly failed (and indeed flat out refuse) to

even attempt to purge their contempt by “replenish[ing] the Receivership Estate for

any and all unpaid mortgage payments” (or any amount) as provided in the Second

Contempt Order.

12. It is my understanding and belief that the Cardiffs refuse to pay any

amounts to replenish the Receivership Estate regarding obligations accruing with

respect to the Receivership Estate while the Receiver attempts to market it for sale.

Attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2, and incorporated herein, are (i) a recent

statement from Mr. Cooper, the holder of the mortgage on the Cardiffs’ Upland

Residence, indicating that no payments have been made on that obligation since the

time the Receivership was implemented and (ii) a statement from a collection

agency retained by the unpaid provider of certain solar equipment installed on the

Upland Residence by the Cardiffs indicating that it remains unpaid.

13. Additionally, on or about June 1, 2020, the Receiver’s counsel, Michael

Gerard Fletcher, Esq., of Frandzel Robins Bloom and Csato LC (“Receiver’s

Counsel”) received an email transmitted by the Cardiffs’ counsel, Stephen Cochell

([email protected]), with a Declaration of Jason Cardiff attached, which was

apparently intended by the Cardiffs to detail their efforts to meet the Court’s


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FRAN

DZE

L RO

BIN

S BL

OO

M &

CSA

TO, L

.C.

1000

WIL

SHIR

E BO

ULE

VARD

, NIN

ETEE

NTH

FLO

OR

LOS

ANG

ELES

, CAL

IFO

RNIA

900

17-2

427

(323

) 852

-100

0

“purge” requirements with respect to the Second Contempt Order. Attached hereto

as Exhibit 3, and incorporated herein is a copy of Mr. Cochell’s email sent to the

Receiver’s Counsel on June 1, 2020; attached hereto as Exhibit 4, and incorporated

therein is a copy of the “Declaration of Jason Cardiff” (bearing Mr. Cardiff’s

signature), that was attached to Mr. Cochell’s email.

14. As is abundantly clear from Mr. Cardiff’s Declaration, that

notwithstanding being given an opportunity to purge themselves of their contempt

of court and avoid incarceration by replenishing the Receivership Estate for

mortgage payments and related expenses with respect to the Upland Residence

while the Receiver markets and sells it, the Cardiffs have flatly refused to take

advantage of the Court’s generous opportunity to avoid incarceration. Mr. Cardiff’s

declaration simply ignores the “opportunity to purge” aspects of the Second

Contempt Order, and confirms that he has no intention of ever replenishing anything

to the Receivership: As to the order that I ‘[r]eplenish the Receivership Estate for any and all unpaid mortgage payments on the Upland Residence, until the date of sale of the Upland Residence (as authorized by ECF Nos. 306, 309).’ I respectfully submit that the Preliminary Injunction does not require that I pay the receivership estate for the unpaid mortgage.” [Emphasis Added].

Declaration of Jason Cardiff, Exhibit 4 hereto at ¶ 5.

15. All of the above comes in the context of the Cardiffs appearing to

continuing to live a lavish life style, at the expense of the receivership estate.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of a June 22, 2020,

communication to the Receiver from JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., authenticating a

credit application dated as of February 1, 2020, from Jaguar Land Rover of Newport

Beach, California. Eunjung Cardiff completed the credit application for the

purposes of leasing a new 2020 Land Rover Range Rover Sport, for a net capital

cost of $84,291.00. Ms. Cardiff claims to have been employed for the last 2 years

and 1 month, as a Director of Executive Management, and lists her income as

$35,000.00 per month, none of which has previously been disclosed to the Receiver.


u ..j ..:

0 ~o

O....lr--E-<I'..N <( :z: '<t' Cl) E-< ("ii

u~" "' .... ~ E-< 0 "'0

~2:a.g oZ:So 0 ~- ~ ';' ...:I < 0 ("ii j:Q>!::lll ..,,_,oo (/)~<-

Z 5 u_ R ...... ~:QcnM ~ "' '-' 0 ~ t;l ~ :z: " "' z ...:I ::l <(

l'<l3~ No....:! ~ 0 z 0 ~ .... ~

1 She also states erroneously that her home at 700 W. 25th Street, Upland, California,

2 which is the residential property as to which this Court has ordered the Cardiffs to

3 bring the mortgage current and keep it current, is owned "free and clear." She

4 further misstates that she is not involved in any lawsuits and has had no property

5 repossessed.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

America that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed

on July I .62020, at Alhambra, California.

BRICK KANE

3787946.4 1 078410-0061 13 Case No. 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA SIXTH AFFIDAVIT OF NON-COMPLIANCE


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


FRAN

DZE

L RO

BIN

S BL

OO

M &

CSA

TO, L

.C.

1000

WIL

SHIR

E BO

ULE

VARD

, NIN

ETEE

NTH

FLO

OR

LOS

ANG

ELES

, CAL

IFO

RNIA

900

17-2

427

(323

) 852

-100

0

EXHIBITS TO DECLARATION OF BRICK KANE

Exhibit 1 Mr. Cooper Statement re Mortgage Reinstatement for Upland Residence dated March 18, 2020.

Exhibit 2 Collection Agency Statement re unpaid Solar Upgrade Obligations on Upland Residence.

Exhibit 3 Email from S. Cochell to M. Fletcher dated June 2, 2020 transmitting Declaration of Jason Cardiff as an attachment

Exhibit 4 Declaration of J. Cardiff attached to S. Cochell / M. Fletcher Email dated June 1, 2020.

Exhibit 5 June 22, 2020, communication to the Receiver from JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., authenticating a credit application dated as of February 1, 2020, from Jaguar Land Rover of Newport Beach, California


EXHIBIT 1


(Page 1 of 6) Case 5:18-cv-02104-DMG-PLA Document 402 Filed 07/16/20 of 45 Page ID #:17705

EXHIBIT 2


EXHIBIT 3


1

From: Stephen Cochell <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, June 1, 2020 12:10 PMTo: Michael Fletcher; Sanger, Elizabeth; Prunty, James A.; Modell, Shira D.Cc: Jim White; Jonathan L. SlotterSubject: Declaration of Jason Cardiff re ContemptAttachments: Declaration of Jason CardiffF.pdf

This is to provide you with a declaration that substantially duplicates what we have discussed on a number of occasions. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. -- Stephen R. Cochell The Cochell Law Firm, P.C. 5850 San Felipe, Ste. 500 Houston, Texas 77057 (346)800-3500 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, printing, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail including any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please destroy this email and notify the sender by e-mail of the same.


EXHIBIT 4


1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

James D. White, Esq. Law Offices of James D. White CA Bar # 064721 PO Box 367 113 Quarter Horse Dr. Bellevue, ID 83313 949 697 9236 [email protected] Stephen R. Cochell Cochell Law Firm P.C. 5850 San Felipe Ste 500 Houston Texas 77057 (346)800-3500 [email protected] Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Defendants Jason Cardiff and Eunjung Cardiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, vs. JASON CARDIFF, et al. Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.: 5:18-cv-02104-SJO (PLAx)

DECLARATION OF JASON CARDIFF

I, Jason Cardiff, do hereby declare the following:


2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I make this declaration pursuant to federal law, 28 U.S.C. Section 1746 under

penalty of perjury.

1. As to the four “bullet points” on page 5 of Judge Otero’s Order (Dkt. # 315),

without waiving any rights, including rights arising from the appeal of said

order, I submit the following information to the best of my present

recollection and belief respecting each such “bullet point.”

2. As to the “source of each and every cash deposit into the FCCU Account”

in my father’s name, I talked directly with my father who told me that all

such cash deposits were made with cash funds that he had saved up over

many years.

3. As to the “source from which he (referring to my father, Gerald Cardiff)

deposited funds into the FCCU Account” my father has told me he had

saved cash over many years, primarily accumulated years ago when he

was active as a dentist and that the cash funds deposited into that FCCU

Account was from cash reserves he had in his possession and accumulated

over the years.

4. As to the order that I “[t]urn over all Cardiff assets to the Receiver,

including assets that have to be repatriated from abroad”, I have already

done so. It should be noted that the Receiver has not, to date, been able

to identify any Foreign assets that have not been turned over per the


3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Order. It is unclear why the FTC raised this issue as part of their

contempt.

5. As to the order that I “[r]eplenish the Receivership Estate for any and all

unpaid mortgage payments on the Upland Residence, until the date of sale

of the Upland Residence (as authorized by ECF Nos. 306, 309).” I

respectfully submit that the Preliminary Injunction does not require that I

pay the receivership estate for unpaid mortgage. I had high expenses at

the time of the TRO. The home was bought and paid for with untainted

funds. It should also be noted that we requested living expenses to pay for

the mortgage, which was denied.

6. I was paying for my father’s retirement home expenses because my father

told me he needed my help. When I started to pay for father’s retirement

home, I did not question whether he had other resources and have no right

to require him to tell me the extent of his financial resources. One of my

other four brothers is now helping my dad by paying for the retirement

home.

7. My father was born in 1929 and has different views about what kind of

information he wants to share with his children. It did not surprise me that

he had cash that he kept for either an emergency or to leave his children

when he passes away.


4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

8. This is a summary of events. I have personal knowledge of the facts thereof

and if called as a witness at hearing or trial, I reserve the right to

supplement and/or clarify my declaration.

Executed on June 1, 2020 at Upland, California.

_________________ Jason Cardiff


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28


EXHIBIT 5


National Subpoena ProcessingMail Code IN1-40547610 West Washington StreetIndianapolis, Indiana 46231

6/22/2020

COLEEN CALLAHANROBB EVANS & ASSOCIATES LLCRECEIVER OF REDWOOD SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC ET AL11450 SHELDON STREETSUN VALLEY, CA 91352-1121

Case Name: Federal Trade Commission v Jason Cardiff, et alCase No.: ED 5:18-cv-02104-SJO-PLAxJPMorgan Chase File No.: 1163-F1

Dear Sir/Madam:

Here is the information that fulfills your request on the matter referenced above.

If you have questions, please call us at 1-844-751-7728. We're here to help Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. EasternTime. Please know that we are only able to provide a status of this request. We can't verbally disclose further information related to therecords and/or information provided.

Please notify our office immediately of any email address changes to avoid electronic delivery delays for future productions.

Sincerely,

Leah LucasOperations Manager, VPChase Customer Service

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Member FDICSUBP17


DECLARATION

Case No.: ED 5:18-cv-02104-SJO-PLAx, ED 5:18-cv-02104-SJO-PLA, 1163-F1

Kristen Wilson, certifies and declares as follows:

1. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to this action.

2. My business address is 7610 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46231.

3. I am a Doc Review Sr Specialist II and Custodian of Records for JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A, (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”) in the National Subpoena Processing

Department located in Indianapolis, IN.

4. Based on my knowledge of the Bank’s business records practices and procedures, the

enclosed records are a true and correct copy of the original documents kept by the Bank

in the ordinary course of business.

5. Based on my knowledge of the Bank’s business records practices and procedures, the

records were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth in the

records by, or from, information transmitted by a person with knowledge of those

matters.

6. It is the regular practice of the Bank to make such a record of transactions in the

ordinary course of business.

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: ______________________________

By:__________________________ Kristen Wilson Doc Review Sr Specialist II JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

6/22/2020


Table Of Contents :1163-F1

Account Number : 7783Auto Loan -Documents 1Auto Loan -Documents 2Auto Loan -Documents 8


F1 1


2


3


1 4


F1 5


SB1141163-F1 6


F1 7


Ending in 77832020 LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER SPO 02/02/2020

Dear EUNJUNG CARDIFF:

We realize you may be facing significant hardship right now, so we're deferring 3 lease payment(s) on your 2020 LAND ROVER. We do not charge a fee for deferrals.

Your payment(s) of $3,510.18, originally due on 04/02/2020 05/02/2020 06/02/2020, will now be due at the end of your lease on 11/02/2022. Your final lease payment and any other charges due under your lease agreement will also be due then.

This means that your next regular lease payment of $1,170.06 is due on 07/02/2020.

If you have been making payments by automatic debit through chase.com or another bill payment service, you must manually stop them for the deferral period. If you don't, we will continue to receive your automatic payment on your previous due date.

We suggest you keep a copy of this letter. If you'd like to reverse this deferral or have questions, please call us at 1-800-227-5151.

Sincerely,

Chase Auto Finance

Esta carta contiene información importante de la cuenta.Si tiene alguna pregunta, por favor llame al 1-800-227-5151.

April 17, 2020

1-800-227-5151

We accept operator relay calls

!!"#$%&'#()*+,-*./!0*,1*23*&4%2+%&52%*,

6*7+*&8*9*++/$:&;"#+&0*23*&<2;(*$%

=#*3%/"$3>

EUNJUNG CARDIFF

UPLAND CA

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.PO Box 182055Columbus, OH 43218-2055

Important Notice:

1 8


9
