Garvin et al v. Tran, et al, No. 5:2007cv01571 - Document 253 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 228 Plaintiffs' Motion for Adverse Inferences against Defendant Jesus Chavez. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 3/8/2011. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Garvin et al v. Tran, et al Doc. 253 1 ** E-filed March 8, 2011 ** 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 For the Northern District of California NOT FOR CITATION 8 United States District Court 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 MARIA A. GARVIN, et al., No. C07-01571 HRL Plaintiffs, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER FOR ADVERSE INFERENCES AGAINST DEFENDANT JESUS CHAVEZ v. 13 LINDA TRAN, et al., 14 15 16 17 Defendants. ____________________________________/ [Re: Docket No. 228] BACKGROUND In this predatory home mortgage loan action, Plaintiffs allege numerous claims against Jesus 18 Chavez (“Chavez”) and many other defendants (collectively “Defendants”). Docket No. 50. 19 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants preyed upon them through predatory and abusive lending practices, 20 which included making misrepresentations about essential terms of loans, using bait-and-switch 21 tactics and duress, charging unreasonable and unearned fees, falsifying information on loan 22 applications, failing to translate important loan documents from English to Spanish, and including 23 unexpected terms allowing for balloon payments, prepayment penalties, and negative amortization. 24 Accordingly, Plaintiffs have sued Chavez, a real estate agent, for violation of (1) the Fair Housing 25 Amendments Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq.; (2) the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 26 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.; (3) the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Government Code § 12955, 27 et seq.; (4) the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1760, et seq.; and for (5) breach of 28 fiduciary duty; (6) civil conspiracy to defraud; (7) unfair competition; and (8) negligence. Dockets.Justia.com 1 Thus, in proving their case against him, Plaintiffs say that they will need to show that 2 Chavez targeted Plaintiffs for predatory loans and discriminated against Plaintiffs because of their 3 race and national origins; received kickbacks and unearned fees in connection with settlement 4 services; breached his fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs; made false statements and omitted material 5 information; misrepresented material information; was involved in a conspiracy to defraud 6 Plaintiffs; engaged in deceptive business practices; and did not act like a reasonably prudent real 7 estate agent. asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination 341 times and refused to answer 10 For the Northern District of California To that end, Plaintiffs deposed Chavez on January 10, 2011. During the deposition, Chavez 9 United States District Court 8 most of Plaintiffs’ questions. As a result, Plaintiffs now move for an order granting them an adverse 11 inference instruction with respect to the information about which Chavez refused to testify. Docket 12 No. 231 (“Motion”). Chavez opposes Plaintiffs’ motion (Docket No. 245 (“Opp’n”)), and oral 13 argument was heard on March 8, 2011. 14 15 LEGAL STANDARD Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, “[n]o person . . . shall be 16 compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend. V. “[T]he 17 Fifth Amendment’s protections against self-incrimination can be asserted in any proceeding, be it 18 civil, criminal, administrative, judicial, investigative or adjudicatory.” Doe v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 19 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444 (1972)). “The 20 privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under 21 a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of 22 evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime.” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 23 479, 486 (1951); see also Doe, 232 F.3d at 1263 (same). “Indeed, it is enough if the responses would 24 merely ‘provide a lead or clue’ to evidence having a tendency to incriminate.’” United States v. 25 Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir. 1980). 26 “[T]he ‘privilege against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon 27 the possibility of prosecution.’” Doe, 232 F.3d at 1263 (quoting United Liquor Co. v. Gard (In re 28 Seper), 705 F2d 1499, 1501 (9th Cir. 1983) (emphasis in original)). “But this protection must be 2 1 confined to instances where the witness has reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct 2 answer.” Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486; see also Neff, 615 F.2d at 1239. “If the threat is remote, 3 unlikely, or speculative, the privilege does not apply . . . .” McCoy v. Comm’r., 696 F.2d 1234, 4 1236 (9th Cir. 1983). But while “[p]arties are free to invoke the Fifth Amendment in civil cases, but the court is 5 6 equally free to draw adverse inferences from their failure of proof.” SEC v. Colello, 139 F.3d 674, 7 677 (9th Cir. 1998). Such adverse inferences may be drawn only when “independent evidence exists 8 of the fact to which the party refuses to answer.” Doe, 232 F.3d at 1264. Such inferences may also 9 only be drawn when “there is a substantial need for the information and there is not another less For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 burdensome way of obtaining the information.” Id. at 1265. DISCUSSION 11 Chavez has reasonable cause to apprehend prosecution in relation to Defendants’ mortgage 12 13 activities, as prosecutors in this District have already alerted his counsel that he is a target of a 14 federal investigation relating to mortgage fraud. See Opp’n, Ex. A (letter from Grant P. Fondo, 15 Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of 16 California, to Lou Doyle, counsel for Chavez, dated October 28, 2010.). Thus, Chavez’s assertion of 17 his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is well-taken. However, this being a civil action, the Court equally free to draw adverse inferences against 18 19 him in relation to information he failed to provide as a result of this assertion, as long as Plaintiffs 20 show that independent evidence exists to support those inferences. SEC v. Colello, 139 F.3d at 677; 21 Doe, 232 F.3d at 1264. Here, Plaintiffs have a substantial need for the information sought because 22 Chavez was directly involved with certain Plaintiffs’ home purchases and possesses unique 23 information about those purchases. Plaintiffs have adequately shown that they cannot obtain such 24 unique information in other less burdensome ways. Therefore, upon review of Plaintiffs’ motion and the supporting declarations and documents, 25 26 the Court has determined that sufficient independent evidence exists to support drawing adverse 27 inferences against Chavez as to the following: 28 • Chavez is familiar with plaintiff Propero Torralba (“Torralba”) 3 1 • Chavez acted as Torralba’s real estate agent and had called Torralba on the telephone 2 • Chavez acted as a “cooperative agent” 3 • Chavez asked Torralba about his income and Torralba told Chavez how much he could afford to pay each month toward a home mortgage 4 5 • Chavez showed homes to Torralba and his wife 6 • Chavez is familiar with plaintiff Juan Ramirez (“Ramirez”) 7 • Chavez acted as Ramirez’s real estate agent 8 • Ramirez told Chavez that he was interested in purchasing a home and sought Chavez’s assistance for that purpose 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 • Chavez ran a credit report with respect to Ramirez 11 • Chavez referred Ramirez to defendant Linda Tran (“Tran”) for financing 12 • Chavez made representations to Ramirez about his ability to purchase a home 13 • Chavez showed homes to Ramirez and his wife 14 • Chavez was familiar with a property at 2788 Cramer Circle, San Jose, California and 15 recommended that Ramirez offer to purchase the property for more than its listed sale price 16 and that Ramirez did so 17 • Chavez was present when Ramirez executed loan documents 18 • Chavez helped Torralba and Ramirez to obtain down payment assistance through defendant Palacio Mortgage and knew that Tran referred clients to Palacio Mortgage in this regard 19 20 • Chavez did not provide either Torralba and Ramirez with Spanish-language copies or 21 English-to-Spanish translations of loan documents, and his meetings with them were 22 conducted in Spanish 23 • Chavez is familiar with and referred business to Palacio Mortgage and Tran 24 • Chavez asked for preapproval letters and loan terms from Tran 25 As to all of Plaintiffs’ other requested adverse inferences, the Court finds that sufficient independent 26 evidence does not exist to support such inferences being taken. 27 28 4 CONCLUSION 1 2 3 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. Adverse inferences may be drawn against Chavez as to the above-listed information only. 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 8, 2011 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 1 C07-01571 HRL Notice will be electronically mailed to: 2 Alisha Mei Yuk Louie Annette D. Kirkham Cindy Hamilton Jessica Lynn Fry Karen Rosenthal Kimberly Pederson Kyra Ann Kazantzis Shawn Robert Parr William Cornelius Last , Jr William J. Goines 3 4 5 6 alouie@sideman.com annettek@lawfoundation.org, teresam@lawfoundation.org hamiltonc@gtlaw.com, sandiferc@gtlaw.com, svlitdock@gtlaw.com jessicaf@lawfoundation.org, nuemig@lawfoundation.org rosenthalk@gtlaw.com, sandiferc@gtlaw.com, svlitdock@gtlaw.com kimp@lawfoundation.org, teresam@lawfoundation.org kyrak@lawfoundation.org shawn@parrlawgroup.com, donna@parrlawgroup.com wclast@lastlawfirm.com goinesw@gtlaw.com, sandiferc@gtlaw.com, svlitdock@gtlaw.com 7 Notice will be provided by other means to: 8 9 Jesus Chavez 2825 Dryden Ave. Gilroy, CA 95020 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 Pablo Curiel 2633 Glen Hancock Court San Jose, CA 95148 12 13 Raya Ghajar 1101 Salerno Drive Campbell, CA 95008 14 15 Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
