Joandark Kassab

10202 Challenger Blvd

La Mesa, CA 91941
Phone: 619-312-5902

Attorney for Plaintiff

Joandark Kassab, In Pro Se

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR

THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION

JOANDARK KASSAB CASE no: 37-2014-00032044-CU-PA-CTL

Plaintiff PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION
TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUCTION
v.

NABIL N. KACHI, et.al. Date: October 24, 2019

Defendants Time: 1:30p.m.
Dept: 903
_____________________________________________________________________________________

I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff, JOANDARK KASSAB, makes the instant submission in response to Defendant
NABIL KACHI’s opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction to prove Defendant’s evasion
of his legal and financial obligation to satisfy the judgement against him.

1
 II

STATEMENT OF FACTS
On September 22. 2014, the court confirmed the Plaintiff’s Arbitration award against the
Defendant in the amount of $142,381.75 plus $71,310.00 in interest and entered the final
judgment on December 12, 2014. (See Exhibit A)

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff JOANDARK filed a separate action against the Defendant
NABIL under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in Superior Court Case 26336 due to the fact
that on October 8, 2014, the Defendant transferred a life insurance policy into an irrevocable
trust so that the property would untouchable beyond the judgment creditors’ reach.

On September 22, 2019 Plaintiff filed a Request for Motion for Preliminary Injunction in
order to prevent the Defendant, NABIL to transfer any monies or assets in the Defendant’s
accounts be transferred to any other accounts, in someone else’s name, etc. to avoid creditors
from collecting the judgment money from their accounts and assets.

On October 11, 2019, NABIL KACHI (“Defendant”) filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s

Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Defendant filed this action to avoid paying the Plaintiff the
money owed due to him from a previous judgment in 2015.

To this day, the Defendant has not made any effort to pay the Plaintiff and is guilty of a
misdemeanor using fraudulent conveyance to defraud, delay creditors of their just debts,
damages, and demands. It’s been 5 years.

Although the TRO (“Temporary Restraining Order”) was denied, there was no ruling
made on the Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

II

ARGUMENT

A. DEFENDANT claims that PLAINTIFF cannot re-litigate an issue previously decided

in prior proceedings
Defendant’s Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction should be denied because
it’s an attempt to elude judgment creditors from collecting. Regardless if the judgment in
this case was already finalized and adjudicated, the Defendant is still responsible and

2
 obligated to own up to their financial obligations in this matter. In some cases, no final
judgment is a final judgment. Intentionally committing fraudulent transactions, such as
transferring assets into trust accounts, other business accounts, property deeds, etc…to
avoid paying off a final judgment raises the need to re -enforce the judgment.

According to California Code, Civil Code- CIV 3439.04:

(a) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is voidable as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose
before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the
obligation as follows:

(1) With actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor….

(B) Intended to incur or believed or reasonably should have believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the
debtor's ability to pay as they became due.

(1) Whether the transfer or obligation was to an insider.

(2) Whether the debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer.

(3) Whether the transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed.

(4) Whether before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with
suit.

(5) Whether the transfer was of substantially all the debtor's assets.

(6) Whether the debtor absconded.

(7) Whether the debtor removed or concealed assets.

(8) Whether the value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the
asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred.

(9) Whether the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was
incurred.

(10) Whether the transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred.

(11) Whether the debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor

With that being said, CA rules of the court CORP 2282 states:

(4) The identification of the final judgment, the amount of the claim that remains unreimbursed from any source,
and an explanation of the claim's computation.

(5) A copy of a final judgment and a copy of the civil complaint and any amendments thereto upon which the
judgment finding fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit, made with the intent to defraud, was made shall be deemed to
satisfy compliance with the requirements prescribed in this paragraph. The claimant may also provide any

3
additional documentation that he or she believes may help the Secretary of State in evaluating the application,
including, but not limited to, evidence submitted to the court in the underlying judgment or a detailed narrative
statement of facts in explanation of the allegations of the complaint upon which the underlying judgment is based.

(7) A description of searches and inquiries conducted by or on behalf of the claimant with respect to the judgment
debtor's assets liable to be sold or applied to satisfaction of the judgment. A court's determination or finding of the
judgment debtor's insolvency or lack of assets to pay the claimant shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements
prescribed in this paragraph.

(8) Each of the following representations by the claimant:

(A) That the claimant is not a spouse, registered domestic partner, or an immediate family member of an employee,
officer, director, managing agent, or other principal of the corporation nor a personal representative of the spouse,
registered domestic partner, or an immediate family member of an employee, officer, director, managing agent, or
other principal of the corporation.

(B) That the claimant has complied with all of the requirements of this section.

(C) That the judgment underlying the claim meets the requirements of subdivisions (a) and (b), including all of the
following:

(i) That the judgment was for fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit by the corporation or the agent of the corporation,
with the intent to defraud.

(ii) That the judgment is unpaid in part or in whole.

The fact that the DEFENDANT is committing fraud to avoid paying his judgment, this
should be reason enough to grant the Motion for Preliminary Injunction to enforce the
satisfaction of judgment regardless if this preliminary injunction wasn’t filed before the final
judgement had been made. Not all final judgments remain final judgments.

B. Defendant Nabil Kachi and his family have had over 5 years to pay the
Plaintiffs their overdue court judgment, which is now in the amount of
$ 201,918.96.
On June 23, 2015, an abstract of Judgment was ruled in favor of Plaintiff. At that point, the
Defendant, Mr. Kachi transferred all his assets into his Kachi’s Family Irrevocable Trust.
Plaintiffs soon realized that defendant had transferred all his assets into another account,
unknown to Court records into their trust account and their Quit Claim Deed ,which more assets
were transferred into, by their son NADEEM, who is also a DEFENDANT in this matter and is
the Trustee of the Kachi Family Irrevocable Trust. and these actions go against the BINDING
ARBITRATION. The Defendants continued their fraudulent transfer interest from their life
insurance policy in the amount of $200,000.

4
 As previously disclosed on my STATEMENT and the STATEMENT from my previous
attorney, J.D. Cuzzolina, Esq on REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, the
DEFENDANTS, NABIR and NOUR KACHI transferred their residence located at: 1010
Singing Ridge Road, El Cajon, CA 92019, to his son’s NADEEM ILIT and also found evidence
that NABIR has additional interest in other real property

The Defendant, NABIL, has a habit of doing anything and everything to avoid paying off
what the court has ordered him to pay and is using the court system to stall creditors from
collecting what is owed.

IV. CONCLUSION

Preliminary Injunction is necessary due to the fact that the Defendant has hid behind the
courts to avoid financial responsibility and his opposition should be denied. This will in turn
prevent the Defendant from transferring any more of his assets to avoid paying what he owes.
The terms of the injunction would be laid out appropriately.

The Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court to grant my Motion for Preliminary Injunction
based on the facts of the case and the evidence presented.

DATED: 10/18/2019 By: ________________________________

JOANDARK KASSAB
ATTORNEY for the PLAINITFF
JOANDARK KASSAB, in pro per

///