Suber v. VVP Services, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: March 23, 2021
• Docket: 1:20-cv-08177
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC Ht; DATE FILED: 3/23/2021 _ Suber, Plaintiff, 20-cv-8177 (AJN) —V— ORDER VVP Services, et al., Defendants.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On March 11, 2021, the Court received the attached ex parte application for a temporary restraining order from Plaintiff. The Court denied that request in an Order on March 11, 2021. The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the application and Order should not be filed on the public docket. Plaintiff filed a letter on March 18, 2021, stating that Plaintiff did not have any cause for the application to remain under seal. The ex parte application, Order, and letter are now unsealed and attached to this Order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2021 A \ Aste New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge

]

A J Amos N. Jones, Attorney at Law [ | | OS O Nn es 1150 K Street Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20005-6809 |. A VW F | R M Telephone: (202) 351-6187 | Facsimile: (202) 478-1654 www.amosjones.com | jones@amosjoneslawfirm.com WASHINGTON, OD.C. via electronic mail to NathanNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov Wednesday March 10, 2021 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan, Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007

RE: Motion for Temporary Restraining Order being filed ex parte as justified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) in Karen M. Suber v. VVP Services, LLC, et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-8177 — AJN (Netburn), and in accord with Her Honor’s rules of practice in this Court Dear Judge Nathan: I serve as lead counsel for Plaintiff Karen M. Suber in the above-captioned matter, and we respectfully submit ex parte the enclosed Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order along with a proposed order, a brief supporting the motion, a Rule 65 certification from me as lead counsel explaining why the ex parte filing with no notice to the non-movant is appropriate here, and the declaration of Plaintiff Karen M. Suber (which declaration is filed under seal) supporting the filing a motion for a temporary restraining order without notice to the non-movants ex parte. We present this letter for such an ex parte restraining-order motion in accordance with the official guidance advising litigants on the practices preferred by Your Honor. We thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted,

Amos N. Jones | Enclosures: As referenced CC: Karen M. Suber, Plaintiff Su Mi Park, Counsel to Plaintiff

EE NY Xa)» Amos Jones is admitted in the District of Columbia and before the U.S. District Court, KV <> □□ District of Maryland, the U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, the oS CS, □□ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the og U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia TOP 100 Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KAREN M. SUBER, § § PLAINTIFF, § v. § § CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL VVP SERVICES, LLC, § IN EX PARTEAPPLICATION VISION VENTURE PARTNERS, LLC, § ELEVEN STONES, LP, § AMIT RAIZADA, § Case No. 1:20-cv-8177– AJN (Netburn) PROMETHEUS VENTURES, LLC, AND § STRATTON SCLAVOS, § § DEFENDANTS. § § § RULE 65 CERTIFICATION AND DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER,ASSET RESTRAINING ORDER, SELECTED EXPEDITED DISCOVERY, AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I,Amos N. Jones,Lead Counsel in the above-captioned matter, certify and declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney forPlaintiff Karen M. Suber. 2. I am a member ingood standing of the Bar of District of Columbia, Number 974919. 3. I am submitting this declaration pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in support of Plaintiff’s ex parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Asset Restraining Order, Selected Expedited Discovery, and Order to show Cause for Preliminary Injunction (the “Motion”). 4. I am filing this Certification in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 65’s subdivision (b)(1), “Issuing Without Notice,” which provides: “The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if: (A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be

heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” 5. I have made no effort to give notice to the Defendants of the filing of this Motion, and I have made every effort to preserve the filing as ex parte, because no notice should be required. 6. No notice to the Defendants should be required because specific facts in both the accompanying Declaration of Plaintiff Karen M. Suber and in the voluminous Second Amended Complaint filed this evening clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to Movant Suber before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.

7. Especially and urgently sensitive is the actuality of the ticking time on Defendants’ attempt to dispose of a considerable asset by Defendants’ having listedfor sale a known asset valued atapproximately $29.5million (the defined “Collingwood Property”) shortly after Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed.See¶¶ 8-9 of Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion. 8. As demonstrated in the Motion and supporting exhibits, Defendants have engaged in a concerted course of unlawful conduct over many years, inflicting multi-millions of dollars in harm as exposed in numerous lawsuits and judgments. Defendants have ample opportunity and motivation to conceal and dissipate assets and destroy important records given that (1) Defendants operate a business enterprise that relies on misrepresentations and is pervaded by fraud, (2) Plaintiff is seeking a considerable monetary judgment against Defendants, (3) Defendants’ assets can be easily transferred, hidden, encumbered, or dissipated to avoid discovery, and (4) electronic data and computer equipment used to run Defendants’ business can be easily altered, wiped,and/or destroyed.

9. Moreover, Defendants have persisted in presenting a parade of falsehood-laden affidavits to this Court in recent days by their own Controller, further demonstrating their willingness to nakedly run afoul of the law even before they have filed an Answer to the well-pleaded complaints Movant-Plaintiff has served in this Action. 10.It has been this Attorney’s experience as a former Associate Professor of Law studying fraud in contractual relations and remedies that defendants who have engaged in deceptive schemes butwho then receive advance notice of the filing of a temporary restraining order often seek to undermine the movant’s efforts by dissipating or concealing assets and destroying evidence:

a. InFTC v. Goldman Schwartz Inc., No. 13-cv-00106 (S.D. Tex. 2013), the FTC obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) with an asset freeze against numerous defendants. Within an hour of being served with the TRO, but before the asset freeze had been fully implemented, the owner withdrew approximately $268,000 from a corporate account. Shortly thereafter, the owner sold approximately $160,000 in securities held in a personal trading account. The next day, the owner’s wife withdrew another $18,500 from a non-defendant corporation’s account that was subject to the asset freeze. Because the court had issued its asset freeze in advance of these dissipation efforts, the FTC and a court-appointed monitor were able to recover the money. b. In FTC vy. Prime Legal Plans, et al, Case No. 0:12-cv-61872-RNS (S.D. Fla. 2012), upon hearing that the TRO had been granted, the Defendants went straight to the bank and transferred $1.7 million in assets to a girlfriend and a mother. The bank was able to claw most of the money back, but the Commission, and thus consumers, ended up losing about $200,000. c. In FTC v. Lakhany, Case No. 12-337-CJC (C.D. Cal. 2012), the day after the court granted an ex parte TRO, but before the FTC could effect service, the defendant’s employee notified the defendant of the FTC’s lawsuit and receivership. The individual defendant proceeded to withdraw $204,000 from corporate bank accounts in violation of the asset freeze. The defendant later stipulated to contempt, and the majority of the funds were recovered. 11. Consequently, there is good cause to believe that, absent an ex-parte TRO, immediate and irreparable damage will result to Movant-Plaintiff Suber, and to the Court’s ability to craft complete and effective final relief to Movant-Plaintiff Suber from the concealment, transfer, and/or destruction of Defendants’ assets and evidence. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statement is true and correct.

net sii Amos N. Jones, Counsel for Plaintiff-Movant Karen M. Suber Dated: March 10, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

THEAMOS JONES LAW FIRM /s/Amos N. Jones __________________________ Amos N. Jones, Esquire pro hac vice D.C. Bar No. 974919 AMOS JONES LAW FIRM 1150 K ST NW Washington, D.C. 20005-6809 Tel.: (202) 351-6187 Fax: (202) 478-1654 E-mail: jones@amosjoneslawfirm.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KAREN M. SUBER, § § PLAINTIFF, § v. § § VVP SERVICES, LLC, § VISION VENTURE PARTNERS, LLC, § Case No. 1:20-cv-8177– AJN (Netburn) ELEVEN STONES, LP, § AMIT RAIZADA, § PROMETHEUS VENTURES, LLC, AND § STRATTON SCLAVOS, § § DEFENDANTS. § § § MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OFPLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, ASSET RESTRAINING ORDER, SELECTED EXPEDITED DISCOVERY, AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiff Karen M. Suber hereby submits this Memorandum of Law in support of Plaintiff’s ex parte Application and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Asset Restraining Order, Selected Expedited Discovery Order, and Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction as against all Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.Rule 65 and Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 26 and 34, as applicable. I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. As a threshold matter, in New York, preliminary injunctions are “appropriate to thwart a defendant from making a judgment uncollectible.” Quantum Corporate Funding, Ltd. v. Assist You Home Health Care Services of Va., 144 F. Supp. 2d 241, 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). This practice is consistent with a leading principle from longstanding Supreme Court authority that a courtmaygrantapreliminary asset-freezeinjunction basedonclaimsforequitablerelief.Deckert v.Indep.SharesCorp.,311U.S.282,288–89(1940)(findinginjunctivereliefappropriatebecause plaintiff sought rescission and restitution). Here, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed today, sets out and documents a profoundly evasive and deleterious project of evasion,

obfuscation, and outright lies conducted by Defendants in order to procure funds and/or services andtoavoidpayingpartiestheyplainlyowe,includingPlaintiff. BeforeanAnswerhasbeenfiled, even the Controller of a Defendant, Angela Correll, already has been exposed before this Court for producing an affidavit [D.E. 87] with a serious falsehood, see D.E. 88 (Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike) –and Defendants’ responsetoexposureof theController’s falseaffidavitwas tobrazenly replaceitwithanotheraffidavitsimilarlydiscredited already.Defendants’conductiscausing, and will continue to cause, irreparable damage, harm, and injury to Plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore respectfully requests that this Court issue: (i) a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Defendants enjoining certain conduct of Defendants; (ii) an order temporarily

restricting the transfer of certain of Defendant Sclavos’s and/or Defendant Prometheus Ventures’ assets, including the Collingwood Property (as defined below), to preserve Plaintiff's rights to an equitable accounting of the VVP Fraudulent Enterprise and other equitable relief sought by Plaintiff; and (iv) an order for selected expedited discovery allowing Plaintiff to access, inspect, and copy Defendants’ records, and records of third parties, relating to the “Sclavos Concealed Loan.”1

1The “Sclavos Concealed Loan” is discussed in ¶¶ 58 (including Footnote 37 thereto) 90, 127, 153, 172 of, and Exhibit 26 to, the FAC and ¶¶ 61 (including Footnote 39 thereto), 99, 136, 162, 181 of, and Exhibit 26 to, the SAC. 2. Plaintiff requests this relief ex parte, because if given notice, Defendants may dispose of or hide their business records, and/or further obfuscate Defendant Sclavos’s and/or DefendantPrometheusVentures’equityand/orotherownershipinterestsinCollingwoodProperty (as defined below),or Defendants may causeother, third parties to do any or allof the foregoing. Withoutexparterelief, Defendants canignoreapplicablelaws,thus extending thedamage, harm,

and injury they are inflicting upon Plaintiff and others, as Defendants clearly continue to operate withoutany fear of consequences. Plaintiff does not request this relief lightly and narrowly tailors her request. Without entryoftherequestedrelief,Defendants’continuedconductwillirreparablydamage,harm, and injure Plaintiff, because Defendants will continue to conceal or misrepresent material facts before the Court and Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures, in concert with otherDefendants,willcontinuetoobfuscateSclavos’sassets,includingSclavos’sequity or other interests intheCollingwood Property (as defined below). 3. Karen M. Suber submits an affidavit in support of this ex parte Application and

Motion attached hereto as ExhibitA (“Affidavit of Ms. Suber”). II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Defendants' Illegal Activities across Jurisdictions, Including Defendants’ Active Concealment of Material Facts

4. Plaintiff Ms. Suber hereby incorporates herein the pleadings set forth in in the SecondAmendedComplaint,whichwasfiledonWednesday,March10,2021[D.E.91](“SAC”). The pleadings, including, in particular, the causes of action, set forth in the SAC illustrate how DefendantsSclavos,PrometheusVentures,Raizada,andElevenStones,workingthroughtheVVP Fraudulent Enterprise and the “VVP Conspiracy” (working with and through Defendants Vision VenturePartners, LLCand VVP Services, LLC),violated,or caused tobeviolated, multiplelaws across several jurisdictions, including, without limitation, the State of New York and the State of California. See ¶ 22 of the SAC for the definitions of the “VVP Fraudulent Enterprise” and “VVPConspiracy.” 5. Here are examples, among other documented facts discussed and/or exhibited in

theSAC: a. In effecting the Sclavos Concealed Loan and making false statements to investors withinNewYork,allofthecoordinatingandconspiringDefendantsviolatedTheMartinAct(N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law, Article23-A, §§352–353)). See, e.g., ¶ 68of theFAC and ¶ 71 of SAC. b. Defendants, acting in a coordinated and concerted manner, concealed then-current and existing material facts from Plaintiff Ms. Suber, and in so doing, Defendants engaged in conduct in violation of the laws of the States of New York and California. See, e.g. ¶ 99 of the SAC. In making the misrepresentations of then-current and existing material facts, Defendants induced Ms.Suber torelocatetoCalifornia and acceptemploymentwith VVP Services.

6. Defendants, again, acting in a coordinated and concerted manner, are working to continue to conceal current and existing material facts in furtherance of the VVP Fraudulent Enterprise and VVP Conspiracy through their misrepresentations to the Court in the form of affidavits submitted by Defendants Raizada and Sclavos and third parties, Ravi Srivastava and Correll. 7. Through their illegal conduct, Defendants, acting in a coordinated and concerted manner,havecaused,andarecontinuingtocause,damage,harm,andinjurytoPlaintiffMs.Suber and other former employees of Defendants Vision Venture Partners, VVP Services, Prometheus Ventures, and/or other entities created through and for the benefit of the VVP Fraudulent Enterprise. B. The Collingwood Property Maintained with Proceeds from the VVP Fraudulent Enterprise and the VVP Conspiracy

8. Defendants havebenefited handsomely andreaped“rewards”fromtheir useof the proceedsoftheVVPFraudulentEnterpriseandtheVVPConspiracy(the“FraudulentEnterprise Proceeds”). Forexample,DefendantsSclavosandPrometheusVentures,withtheknowledgeand acquiescenceoftheotherDefendants,usedtheFraudulentEnterpriseProceeds,includingportions ofeachoftheSclavosConcealedLoan,tofundtheoperation,maintenance,repair,mortgage,and otherobligationsinrespectof alavish,11,800-square-footmansionat1305CollingwoodPlacein Los Angeles, California, in one of the world’s most exclusive residential enclaves (the “Collingwood Property”) in addition to funding Sclavos’s decadent “lifestyle of the rich and famous” and the Sclavos Drug Problem defined in the SAC. See, e.g., ¶ 99 of the SAC. Were it not for the Sclavos Concealed Loan, the primary lender of the Collingwood Property would have foreclosed on the Collingwood Property well in advance of the May 2020 foreclosure, which foreclosureledtoaseparatelegalproceeding. SeeExhibitA(“Prometheus-SclavosForeclosure Complaint”) and Exhibit B(“ForeclosureMotion to Dismiss”) attached hereto, which Exhibits

arealso referenced in Footnote14 to¶ 19of theSAC (the“Fraudulent EnterpriseDiagrams”). Inaddition, wereitnot for the Sclavos Concealed Loan, Sclavos could not have jet-setted around the world on luxurious vacations and seeking to defraud other investors, including investors locatedinNewYork,NewYork(andincludinginthisDistrict)andtheStateofCalifornia,among other jurisdictions. 9. In essence, then, the value of the Collingwood Property, which is currently estimated to be $29,500,000.00,2 is based on and a result of the Fraudulent Enterprise Proceeds. To be clear, then, Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures, with the knowledge and acquiescenceoftheotherDefendants,violatedlawsandcauseddamage,harmandinjurytoothers, including Plaintiff Ms. Suber, other employees and investors in order to generate the Fraudulent

Enterprise Proceeds to help support the opulent home that is the Collingwood Property. Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures, with theknowledge and acquiescence of theother Defendants, even robbed the retirement funds of a former employee, Michael Mossholder of at least two of the Defendants to generate those Fraudulent Enterprise Proceeds to support the Collingwood Property in addition tosupporting Sclavos’s decadentlifestyle. 10. Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures have estimated their equity stake in theCollingwoodPropertyasapproximatelybetween$10,000,000and$17,000,000,3andtheywill likely realize cash proceeds through the sale of the Property. Other interest holders in the Collingwood Property, including Defendant Raizada and his associates Derek M. Nelson and

JosephMichaelWarneralsostandtogainfromtheforthcomingsaleoftheCollingwoodProperty.

2 See the agency listing at https://www.thealtmanbrothers.com/listing/1305-collingwood-pl-los- angeles-ca-90069/ (“Positioned to capture one of the most impressive views in the Hollywood Hills, this sophisticated + elegant compound offers the pinnacle of luxury living. Spanning 11,800 sqft surrounded by explosive views spanning from Downtown L.A. to the Pacific Ocean, the estate boasts 6 bdrms, 8 bthrms & every world class amenity desirable. Upon entry, the automatic retractable wall of glass seamlessly opens vertically creating quintessential indoor/outdoor living. Walls of glass vanish offering a perfect flow out onto the expansive deck with an infinity edge pool, spa, BBQ, & fire feature. On the second level, the master retreat displays unobstructed views, a balcony, luxurious bthrm w/a soaking tub & dual walk-in closets. The lower level features a fully appointed spa w/ a sauna surrounded by salt walls, media room, bar, wine cellar & state-of-the-art fitness center. Completely controlled by Savant Technology, the living experience is second to none. 20ft, 3car garage can accommodate 6 w/lift.”) last visited March 10, 2021. 3See ¶ 34 of the Prometheus-Sclavos Foreclosure Complaint. 11. BecausetheCollingwood Property is currentlyfor saleand has been onthemarket only 107 days, see https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1305-Collingwood-Pl-Los-Angeles-CA- 90069/20799161_zpid/(lastvisitedMarch10,2021),itisonlyamatteroftimebeforeDefendants and others realize the proceeds from the sale of the Property, including the fruits of the VVP FraudulentEnterpriseand VVPConspiracy–THEFRAUDULENTENTERPRISEPROCEEDS.

III. ARGUMENT IV. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO THE RELEIFREQUESTED HERIEN RESTRAINING AND ENJOINING DEFENDANTS' CONDUCT 12. Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in part, that a temporary restrainingordermaybegrantedwithoutwrittenororalnoticetotheopposing party or that party’s counsel where “specific facts in an affidavit . . . clearly show that immediate and irreparableinjury, loss, or damagewillresult tothe movantbeforetheadverse party canbeheard inopposition.”This is such acase. It is well-established thatcourts have the inherent authority to granttemporaryrestrainingorders“‘topreservethestatusquopendingafinaldeterminationofthe rights of the parties,’ in order ‘to preserve the power to render a meaningful decision on the merits.’” Resolution Tr. Corp. v.Cruce,972 F.2d1195, 1198(10th Cir.1992) (quoting Lundgrin v. Claytor, 619 F.2d 61, 63 (10th Cir. 1980); Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n, Inc. v.

ShoshoneRiver Power, Inc.,805 F.2d351, 355(10th Cir. 1986)). 13. Injunctivereliefisappropriatewherethepartyseekingtheinjunctionshows:(1)“a likelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsor...sufficiently seriousquestionsgoingtothemeritstomake them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the plaintiff’s favor”;(2)alikelihoodof“irreparableinjuryintheabsenceofaninjunction”;(3)that“thebalance ofhardshipstipsintheplaintiff’sfavor”;and(4)thatthe“publicinterestwouldnotbedisserved.” Benihana, Inc. v. Benihana of Tokyo, LLC, 784 F.3d 887, 894-95 (2d Cir. 2015); Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010). The temporary restraining order standard is the same. See, e.g., Local 1814 v. New York Shipping Ass’n, 965 F.2d 1224, 1228 (2d Cir. 1992); Echo Design Grp. v.Zino DavidoffS.A.,283 F.Supp. 2d 963,966(S.D.N.Y. 2003). 14. Plaintiff Ms. Suber Has Shown a Strong Likelihood of Success on the Merits; Plaintiff Ms. Suber is Likely to Prevailon Plaintiff Ms. Suber’s Claims; and, Thus, Plaintiff

Ms. Suber Ultimately will be Entitled to Equitable Relief in Various Forms. To establish a likelihood of success onthemerits, aplaintiff“need notshow thatsuccess is certain,onlythatthe probability of prevailing is ‘better than fifty percent’.”BigStar Entm’t, Inc. v.Next Big Star, Inc., 105 F.Supp. 2d185,191(S.D.N.Y.2000) (quotingAbdulWaliv.Coughlin, 754 F.2d1015,1025 (2dCir.1985)). Ms.Suberhasshownastronglikelihoodofsucceedingonthemeritsofherclaims, or at the very least, she has raised sufficiently serious questions on the merits of her claims and causesofactionassetforthintheSAC. AsdemonstratedthroughouttheSAC, withitssignificant sourcing, exhibits, and factual development based largely on public records and reputable news sources, Ms. Suber will be entitled to both equitable and legal remedies. For example, Ms. Suber

has shown a strong likelihood that, among other remedies, she will be entitled to an equitable accounting of the VVP Fraudulent Enterprise so that the Court is able to determine the equity compensationtowhichsheis entitled. Asexamples ofPlaintiffMs.Suber’slikelihoodofsuccess onthemeritsandthelikelihoodthatshewill,infact,prevailofherclaims,andthereforebeentitled torelief, Plaintiff respectfully asks theCourtto consider thefollowing: a. The Sclavos Concealed Loan. The Sclavos Concealed Loan is but one aspect of theVVPFraudulentEnterpriseandtheVVPConspiracy. PlaintiffMs.Suberwillbeabletoeasily show, beyond any doubt, that Defendants Raizada and Sclavos concealed the $2,000,000 loan to Sclavosbyeffectivelyforcingthen-ChiefOperating OfficerChristopherNordling toacceptaloan from HD Films, LLC, that Nordling knew he would have to substantially contemporaneous therewith turnaround andsend thefundstoSclavos, whowas,atthetime,desperateforcash. All the evidence necessary is readily available to illustrate the Loan and, thus, the VVP Fraudulent Enterpriseand theVVPConspiracy: (i) bank accountsofSclavosandPrometheus Venturesfrom andafterNovember1,2017;(ii)bankaccountsofChristopherNordlingfromandafterNovember

1, 2017; and (iii) an affidavit of Christopher Nordling providing the details surrounding his “passing through”theconcealed loan fromhis bank account to Sclavos’s bank account. b. TheMaterialMisrepresentationofThen-CurrentandExistingMaterialFacts about Defendant Sclavos’s Net Worth. Myriad misrepresentations and concealments of current andexistingmaterialfactsbyDefendantsarediscussedthroughouttheSAC,andonesuchmaterial misrepresentation and concealment is the net worth of Defendant Sclavos. Defendant Sclavos, in concert and coordination with the other Defendants and other of their respective associates, misrepresented that he had a net worth of several billion dollars. This material misrepresentation andconcealment,amongothermaterialmisrepresentationsandconcealments,waspartoftheVVP

Fraudulent Enterprise and VVP Conspiracy, and this material misrepresentation caused damage, harm, and injury to Plaintiff Ms. Suber and others. Yet, Plaintiff Ms. Suber will be able to easily show that Sclavos’s net worth was nowhere near a billion dollars and was, in fact, closer to $0, if notnegative.AlltheevidencenecessaryisreadilyavailabletoillustrateSclavos’silliquidityand/or insolvency and, thus the VVP Fraudulent Enterprise and the VVP Conspiracy: (i) the financial records of Sclavos and (ii) affidavits of selected vendors, including, e.g., Tishman Speyer, who were also intentionally and falsely led to believe that Sclavos had a net worth of several billion dollars. c. Plaintiff is positioned to provide additional examples of the ample evidence in supportof theclaims setforth intheSAC thatis readily available. 15. Plaintiff has Shown the Likelihood of Irreparable Harm Absent Injunctive Relief. To demonstrate irreparable harm, a plaintiff must show an injury that is “actual and imminent” and “cannot be remedied by an award of monetary damages.” Shapiro v. Cadman

Towers, Inc.,51 F.3d 328,332 (2dCir. 1995) (citation and internalquotation marks omitted). An award of money damages is inadequate “where a non-movant’s assets may be dissipated before final relief can be granted, …, such that an award of monetary relief would be meaningless[.]” Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Newark, New Jersey v. Keating, 753 F. Supp. 1146, 1153 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (citationomitted). DefendantSclavoshaswhittledawayhispurportedfortuneoverthelastseveral years on an excessive lifestyle, including fueling the Sclavos Drug Problem. Unless Defendant Sclavos,throughhimself andPrometheusVenturesandwiththeassistanceofotherDefendants,is restrained from dissipating his assets, including the Collingwood Property, there will be no commonresourcelefttosatisfytheequitableorother remediestowhichMs.Suberwillultimately

be entitled in this multi-Defendant case filed five months ago – before Defendants listed The Collingwood Property for sale. Significantly, Plaintiff Ms. Suber is informed that the wrongful foreclosure suit that was ultimately settled by Defendant Sclavos and the defendants in that suit was actually a process put in place by Defendant Raizada and other associates of Raizada, including two named defendants in the wrongful foreclosure suit, Derek M. Nelson and Joseph Michael Warner. 16. The Balance of Hardships Tip Decidedly in Favor of Plaintiff Ms. Suber, and the Public Interest Favors Entry of a TRO and Preliminary Injunction. Neither Defendant Sclavos nor any of the other Defendants will suffer any conceivable hardship if the Court freezes the disposition of the Collingwood Property (or any other assets of Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures), especially if they have been truthful in various representations about their assets and liquidity in various interactions and proceedings around the country lately. Neither DefendantSclavosnoranyoftheotherDefendantshaveanyrighttousetheprofitsofafraudulent enterprise – THE FRAUDULENT ENTERPRISE PROCEEDS – to continue supporting their

unlawfulactivities or forpersonaluses. 17. The public interest favors granting Plaintiff Ms. Suber the equitable relief requestedherein. Defendantsareengagedinfraudulentactivitiesandhavedefraudedemployees and investors in violation of the laws of the State of New York and the State of California. The publichasaninterestinknowing aboutandarresting thefraudulentconductofDefendantssothat otherprospectiveemployeesand/orinvestorsand/orotherpotentialvictimsoftheVVPFraudulent Enterprise and VVP Conspiracy arenotdefrauded. 18. Public policy strongly supports the issuance of a temporary restraining order, injunction, and asset freeze where, as is the case here, significant fraudulent activity has been

unmasked.ThereisnoconceivablesocialutilityinallowingDefendantstocontinuethefacilitation of widespread illegality, including theVVP FraudulentEnterpriseand theVVP Conspiracy,or in allowing Defendants Sclavos or any of the other Defendants continue to benefit by using the FRAUDULENT ENTERPRISE PROCEEDS. To let them do so is the very definition of unjust enrichment. 19. Bond to Secure the Injunction. Because of the active concealment of assets and material facts by Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures and the robust nature of Plaintiff Ms. Suber’s evidence, Ms. Suber respectfully requests this Court require her to post a bond of no more than five hundred dollars ($500.00). The posting of security upon issuance of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction is vested in the Court’s sound discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). International Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 490 F.2d 1334 (2d Cir. 1974) (approving the DistrictCourt’s setting of abond amount at$0.00).

V. THECOURT HAS AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AN EX PARTE ASSET FREEZE ORDER 20. Plaintiff Ms. Suber seeks, among others, the equitable remedies of both rescission and an accounting of profits of the VVP Fraudulent Enterprise (see § XXI of the SAC). Consequently,theCourthastheequitableauthoritytoissueapre-judgmentassetfreezeinjunction. GucciAm., Inc.v. BankofChina,768F.3d 122,130(2d Cir.2014) (findingthatincircumstances where plaintiffs seek equitable remedies, the district court has the equitable authority to issue an assetfreezeinjunction). SeealsoDeckertv.IndependenceCorp.,311U.S.282,290(1940)(“Itis wellsettled that thegranting of atemporary injunction, pending finalhearing, is within thesound discretion ofthetrialcourt;and that, uponappeal, anordergrantingsuchan injunction willnotbe

disturbed unless contrary to some rule of equity, or the result of improvident exercise of judicial discretion.”); Prendergast v. New York Telephone Co., 262 U.S. 43, 50-51; Meccano, Ltd. v. Wanamaker,253U.S.136,141(“Asalreadystated, therewereallegationsthatIndependencewas insolventanditsassetsindangerofdissipationordepletion.Thisbeingso,thelegalremedyagainst Independence, withoutrecoursetothefund inthehands ofPennsylvania, would beinadequate.”). 21. It is well settled that a “preliminary injunction may issue to preserve assets as security for a potential monetary judgment where the evidence shows that a party intends to frustrateanyjudgmentonthemeritsbymakingituncollectible.”Pashaianv.EccelstonProperties, 88F.3d77,at86-87(citationsomitted);seealsoRepublicofPhilippinesv.Marcos,806F.2d344,

356 (2d Cir. 1986) (preventing transfer or encumbrance of properties that would place them beyond reach or prevent their reconveyance); In re Feit & Drexler, Inc., 760 F.2d 406, 416 (2d Cir.1985)(“[E]ven wheretheultimatereliefsoughtismoneydamages,federalcourtshavefound preliminary injunctions appropriate where it has been shown that the defendant intended to frustrate any judgment on the merits by transferring [their] assets”) (quotations and citations omitted);QuantumCorporateFunding,Ltd.v.AssistYouHomeHealthCareServicesofVa.,144

F. Supp. 2d 241, 248 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), quoted supra (“Preliminary injunctions” are “appropriate tothwartadefendantfrommaking ajudgmentuncollectible.”). 22. TheCourthas ampleauthority tograntsuch relief under theFederalRules of Civil Procedure. The Court may freeze Defendants’ assets for a potential judgment through a Rule 65 preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Mason Tenders Dist. Council Pension Fund v. Messera, 1997 WL 223077, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 7,1997) (“[T]he United States Supreme Court and the Second CircuithavemadeRule65availabletosecureassets for theultimatejudgment.”). 23. Courtshaveidentifiedthreeprerequisitestothegrantingofapreliminaryinjunction freezing a defendant’s assets: “(1) that the defendant may be unable to satisfy a final monetary

judgment; (2) that the final relief requested is equitable in nature; (3) that the frozen assets are relatedtothesubjectmatteroftheaction.”MasonTenders,1997WL223077,at*8.Eachofthese threshold requirements is readily satisfied here: (1) There is a high probability that Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures willbe unableto satisfy a finaljudgment in this casegiven the Sclavos Drug Problem (see ¶ 117 of the SAC) and given the excessive lifestyle led by Defendant Sclavos, which Sclavos financed, and continues to finance, with the Fraudulent Enterprise Proceeds; (2) As described in the SAC, Plaintiff Ms. Suber possesses equitable remedies enforceable against Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures, and, hence, possess equitable interests in the Collingwood Property (and the proceeds arising therefrom); and (3) The assets sought to be frozen, the Collingwood Property and other liquid assets of Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures, were, and continue to be, financed through the Fraudulent Enterprise Proceeds. Thus, thereis anarticulablenexus between theinjunctiverelief soughtbyPlaintiff Ms. Suber and theultimateequitableremedies soughtbyMs. Suber.GucciAm., Inc., 768F.3dat133. Ifatemporaryrestrainingorderand,then,apreliminaryinjunction,freezingDefendantsSclavos’s

and Prometheus Venture’s assets are not granted by the Court, neither Defendant will have any resources with which to satisfy the final judgment against them; if the TRO and preliminary injunction are not granted, Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Venture will go through their remaining assets, that will ultimately include the proceeds from the sale of the Collingwood Property, as fastas ImeldaMarcos ranthrough shoes. VI. PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SELECTED EXPEDITED DISCOVERY District Courts have broad power to require early document production and to permit expedited discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(d) provides that a party to a civil action may seek discovery before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f) when authorized by court order.

Applications for expedited discovery should be considered and reviewed under the flexible standard of reasonableness and good cause, along with particularly careful scrutiny since Plaintiff is moving for expedited discovery on an ex parte basis. Strike 3 Holdings v. Doe, 20-cv-6596 (AJN), at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2020) (“When considering whether to grant a motion for expedited discovery prior to a Rule 26(f) conference, courts apply a ‘flexible standard of reasonableness and good cause.’ Digital Sin,279 F.R.D. at 241 (quoting Ayyash v. Bank Al- Madina,233 F.R.D. 325, 326-27(S.D.N.Y. 2005)”);see also Stern v.Cosby,246 F.R.D. 453,457 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); accord Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2046.l (3d ed. 2011)”). SeealsoAyyash v. Bank Al-Madina, 233 F.R.D. 325, 326-327(S.D.N.Y. 2005). Plaintiff has made a strong evidentiary showing of the substantiality of her claims. In the context of that showing, and in consideration of the fact that Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures are foreign persons, domiciled outside of the State of New York and outside of this

District, who have both incentive and capacity to hide their assets, there is considerable urgency to Plaintiff Ms. Suber’s need to seek information about Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures and their assets.Cf.In re Ishihara Chem. Co., 121 F. Supp. 2d 209, 225 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (ex parte-application-for-discovery case noting that “the U.S. system of broad discovery is fundamentally different from that of most foreign countries [in that] most other countries fiercely limit the scope of discovery”).

VII. CONCLUSION For all of the above reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant Plaintiff’s motion and rule in the form of the Proposed Order attached to Plaintiff Ms. Suber’s Emergency Ex Parte Application and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Asset Restraining Order, Selected Expedited Discovery, and Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction.

Respectfully submitted,

THEAMOS JONES LAW FIRM /s/Amos N. Jones __________________________ Amos N. Jones, Esquire pro hac vice D.C. Bar No. 974919 E-mail: jones@amosjoneslawfirm.com /s/Su Mi Park __________________________ Su Mi Park, Esquire pro hac vice D.C. Bar No. 155118 E-mail: park@amosjoneslawfirm.com

AMOS JONES LAW FIRM 1150 K ST NW Washington, D.C. 20005-6809 Tel.: (202) 351-6187 Fax: (202) 478-1654 UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFNEW YORK

KAREN M.SUBER, § § PLAINTIFF, § v. § § VVPSERVICES, LLC, § CaseNo. 1:20-cv-8177 –AJN (Netburn) VISIONVENTURE PARTNERS, LLC, § ELEVEN STONES, LP, § AMIT RAIZADA, § PROMETHEUS VENTURES, LLC, AND § STRATTON SCLAVOS, § § DEFENDANTS. § § § PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY EX PARTEAPPLICATIONAND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, ASSET RESTRAINING ORDER, SELECTED EXPEDITED DISCOVERY, AND ORDER TOSHOW CAUSE FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiff Karen M. Suber, through her undersigned attorneys, on an ex parte basis, does respectfully apply to this Court, based upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law in supporthereof andthepleadings setforthintheother filings madebyPlaintiffMs.Suberin this proceeding through the date hereof, for entry of (1) a temporary restraining order, (2) asset restraining order, (3) order authorizing expedited discovery, and (4) order to show causefora preliminary injunction pursuantto Rule 65of the Fed. R.Civ.P.for thereasons setforthbelow: 1. Defendants, acting individually and in concert, have been, and are continuing to be, actively engaged intheconcealmentof assets and of materialfacts relating totheclaims set forth in the Second Amended Complaint, which was filed on Wednesday, March 10, 2021 [D.E.91] (“SAC”).

2. The SAC and the pleadings set forth in the other filings made by Plaintiff through the date hereof demonstrate the likelihood of Plaintiff Ms. Suber’s success on the merits of her claims against Defendants and set forth Plaintiff Ms. Suber’s clearly ascertainablerights toequitablerelief. 3. Plaintiff Ms. Suber has no adequate remedy at law for the compounding damages, harm, and injuries Plaintiff Ms. Suber has sustained and will continue to sustain unlessDefendants’conductisrestrainedandunlesstheCourtgrantstheotherequitablerelief requested herein, and, absent the equitable relief requested herein, Plaintiff Ms. Suber will suffer irreparabledamage, harmand injury.

4. The balance of hardships as between Plaintiff Ms. Suber, on the one hand, and Defendants, ontheother hand, tilts decidedly in favor of Plaintiff Ms.Suber. 5. The public interest favors granting Plaintiff Ms. Suber the equitable relief requested herein. 6. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 65(b)(1)(A), attached as Exhibit A to the Memorandumof Law inSupportof this Application and Motion is the affidavit of Plaintiff Ms. Suber (“Ms. Suber’s Affidavit”). 7. PursuanttoFed.R.Civ.P.Rule65(b)(1)(B),theundersignedcounselhereby certify: a. No efforts have been made to give notice of this Application and Motion to

Defendants;and b. Notice to the Defendants should not be required, because as stated in Ms. Suber’s Affidavit, there are more than sufficient reasons to believe that if

Defendants are provided with notice of this Application and Motion, Defendants will endeavor to further hide any assets in which Defendants, particularly Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures, have, direct or indirect, interests or other rights or claims. See ¶ 9 of Plaintiff Ms. Suber’s Affidavit. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for entry, without bond, of the [Proposed] Temporary Restraining Order, AssetRestraining Order, Selected Expedited Discovery,and Order to Show Cause attached hereto as Exhibit 1, pending hearing on Plaintiff’s Emergency Ex Parte Application and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Asset

RestrainingOrder,SelectedExpeditedDiscovery,andOrdertoShowCauseforPreliminary Injunction. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Amos N. Jones __________________________ Amos N. Jones, Esquire pro hac vice D.C. Bar No. 974919 E-mail: jones@amosjoneslawfirm.com /s/Su Mi Park __________________________ Su Mi Park, Esquire pro hac vice D.C. Bar No. 155118 E-mail: park@amosjoneslawfirm.com AMOS JONES LAW FIRM 1150 K ST NW Washington, D.C. 20005-6809 Tel.: (202) 351-6187 Fax: (202) 478-1654 Attorneys for Plaintiff Karen M. Suber Dated: March 10,2021 UNITEDSTATESDISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFNEW YORK KAREN M.SUBER, § § PLAINTIFF, § v. § CaseNo. 1:20-cv-8177 –AJN (Netburn) § VVPSERVICES, LLC, § VISIONVENTURE PARTNERS, LLC, § [PROPOSED] EMERGENCY EXPARTE ELEVEN STONES, LP, § TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, AMIT RAIZADA, § ASSET RESTRAINING ORDER, PROMETHEUS VENTURES, LLC, AND § SELECTED EXPEDITEDDISCOVERY STRATTON SCLAVOS, § ORDER AND ORDER TOSHOW § CAUSEFOR PRELIMINARY DEFENDANTS. § INJUNCTION § § UPON CONSIDERATION OF: (I) Plaintiff Ms. Suber’s ex parte Motion for a temporary restraining order, asset restraining order, order authorizing expedited discovery, and order to show cause for a preliminary injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for TRO”),nonoticehavingbeengiven,forthereasonthatDefendants,actingindividuallyand inconcert,havebeen,andarecontinuingtobe,activelyengagedintheconcealmentofassets andofmaterialfactsrelatingtotheclaimssetforthintheSecondAmendedComplaint,which was filedonWednesday, March10,2021[D.E.92](“SAC”); (II) Plaintiff’s memorandumof law insupportofPlaintiff’s ExParteMotion for TRO; and (III) theother relevantfilings ontheECFDocket, THE COURT FINDS: A. Plaintiff Ms. Suber is likely to succeed in on the merits of the causes of action pleaded in theSAC. B. Defendants, or other persons acting in concert with Defendants, would likely move, hide, or otherwise make assets and business records inaccessible to the Court if Plaintiff proceeded on notice to Defendants, thus frustrating the ultimate relief that Plaintiff seeks

inthis action. C. Plaintiff Ms. Suber has no adequate remedy at law for the damages, harm, and injuries Plaintiff Ms. Suber has sustained and will continue to sustain unless Defendants’ conduct is restrained and unless the Court grants the other equitable relief requested herein, and, absent the equitable relief requested herein, Plaintiff Ms. Suber will suffer irreparable harm. D. ThebalanceofhardshipsasbetweenPlaintiffMs.Suber,ontheonehand,andDefendants, ontheother hand, tilts decidedly in favor of Ms. Suber. E. Entry of an order other than an exparteorder would notadequately preservetheequitable

remedies available to Plaintiff, including, inter alia, rescission, an accounting of profits and specificperformance. F. ThepublicinterestfavorsgrantingPlaintiffMs.Subertheequitablereliefrequestedherein.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Defendants appear to show cause on ___________________,2021at______a.m./p.m. prevailingeasterntime,asfurtherdirectedby the Court at its discretion or as contemplated by the Local Rules of United States District Courts fortheSouthern and Eastern Districtsof New York and/or theIndividual Practices inCivil Cases of the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, including the Emergency Individual Rules and Practices in Light of Covid-19 of the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, why an Order pursuant to Rule 65 of the Fed.R.Civ.P.shouldnotbeenteredgranting apreliminary injunction as setforth below.

SUBJECT SCLAVOSASSETSAND FROZENASSETS ESCROWACCOUNT 1. Restraining and enjoining Defendants Sclavos or Prometheus Ventures and all other

Defendants, and their respective officers, directors, agents, representatives, successors or assigns,and/orheirs,andallpersonsactinginconcertorinparticipationwithanyofthem, from: i. Transferring, disposing of, concealing or secreting any money, stock, bonds, real property, personal property, or other assets (of any kind or nature whatsoever) of Defendants Sclavos or Prometheus Ventures (or the proceeds from any of the foregoing), whether, directly or indirectly, held by or held for the benefit, or on behalf, of or in trust for any of Defendants Sclavos or Prometheus Ventures (all of the foregoing, the “Subject Sclavos Assets”) into or out of any accounts or

arrangementsassociatedwithorutilizedby,directlyorindirectly,anyofDefendants Sclavos or Prometheus Ventures or any other Defendants, except as expressly set forth further herein;and ii. Assisting, aiding, or abetting any person or business entity in engaging in or performinganyoftheactivitiesreferredtointheabovesubparagraph(i),oreffecting any assignments, transfers or other dispositions, forming new entities, trusts, or associations, or utilizing any other device for the purpose of circumventing or otherwiseavoiding theprohibitions setforth insubparagraph(i). iii. For the avoidance of doubt, the term “real property” as used in this Order shall include the land, all of the buildings thereon, other improvements thereto and all of the rights and interests (of any kind or nature whatsoever) accruing thereto or held therein, all of which, together, are commonly known as 1305 Collingwood Place, LosAngeles,California,90069,withAssessor’sParcelNo.5560-003-003,andwith

theland described as follows:

LOT56OFTRACTNO,17290,INTHECITYOFLOSANGELES,COUNTY OFLOSANGELES,STATEOFCALIFORNIA,ASPERMAPRECORDED IN BOOK 440, 'PAGES 27 TO 30 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OFTHECOUNTY RECORDER OFSAID COUNTY.

The real property so described in this paragraph 1.iii. hereinafter referred to as the “Collingwood Property.”

2. IN FURTHERANCE OF THE FOREGOING RESTRAINTS, IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthat,withinforty-eight(48)hours,DefendantSclavos,athissolecostand expense, shall be required to establish an escrow account (a) situated with, and held within,theprivatebank of Citibank, N.A.located in Los Angeles, California, and (b) subjectto anescrow agreementin aform acceptable to(i) theCourt,and (ii) Plaintiff Ms. Suber, pending the final resolution of this proceeding and, in any case, until the earlier of (A) a settlement agreement among, and duly executed and delivered by Plaintiff Ms. Suber and all of Defendants, and (B) a final, non-appealable verdict of allof thecauses of action inthis proceeding (the“Frozen AssetsEscrowAccount”). Any andallinterestaccruing to such Accountshallbemaintained intheAccountand shall not be included with, or used in the determination of whether the Minimum Frozen Escrow Balance (as defined below) is contained in the Frozen Assets Escrow Account. 3. IN FURTHERANCE OF THE FOREGOING RESTRAINTS, IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED that, after the Full Accounting of the Sclavos Assets (as defined in ¶ 12 below)ispresented totheCourtandPlaintiffMs.Suberinaformthatisacceptableto theCourtandPlaintiff Ms. Suber,Defendants Sclavos andPrometheus Ventures may proceed with the transfer, sale or other disposition of any of the Subject Sclavos Assets, including the Collingwood Property; provided, however, that any and all proceedsarisingfromorrelatingtoanysuchtransfers,salesorotherdispositionsshall be placed in the Frozen Assets Escrow Account until the balance contained in such Accountis $6,000,000.00 (such amount, exclusive of any interest accrued thereupon, the“MinimumFrozen EscrowBalance”).

4. IN FURTHERANCE OF THE FOREGOING RESTRAINTS, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, FOR THE ADVOIDANCE OF DOUBT, THAT, SUBJECT TO ¶ 31.3 HEREOF, UPON ANY SALEOROTHER DISPOSITION OFANY INTERESTIN OR OF THE COLLINGWOOD PROPERTY, OR UPON THE RECEIPT OF ANY INSURANCE OR OTHER PROCEEDS IN RESPECT OF THE COLLINGWOOD PROPERTY, OR INTEREST THEREIN, THAT DEFENDANTS SCLAVOS AND PROMETHEUS VENTURES SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PLACE, OR CAUSED TO BE PLACED, ANY SUCH PROCEEDS IN THE FROZEN ASSETS ESCROW ACCOUNT UNTIL THE ACCOUNT CONTAINS THE MINIMUM FROZEN ESCROW BALANCE, AND, PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT THE ALTMAN BROTHERSSHALLBEREQUIREDTOENSURETHATSUCHPROCEEDSARE DISTRIBUTED AND TRANSFERRED INTO THE FROZEN ASSETS ESCROW ACCOUNT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE FOREGOING AND PRIOR TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF ANY OTHER PROCEEDS TO ANY OTHER PERSON,

OTHER THAN THOSE DISTRIBUTIONS THAT ARE, IN THE OPINION OF COMPETENT LEGAL COUNSEL, REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW TO BE MADETO ANY GOVERNMENTALAUTHORITIES. 5. IN FURTHERANCE OF THE FOREGOING RESTRAINTS, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within two (2) hours after entry into any agreement or other arrangement (whether written, oral or otherwise) relating to or in respect of the Collingwood Property (or the ownership, equity or security interests held therein), which agreement or other arrangement affects or could reasonably be expected to affect the disposition (including, without limitation, through sale or otherwise), or

value, of the Collingwood Property, each of Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures, the other Defendants and The Altman Brothers of Los Angeles, California (or any partners, agents, affiliates or representatives thereof (including without limitation DouglasElliman), and, including, without limitation, in each case, any successorsthereto) inrespectof theCollingwoodProperty(collectively,the“Altman Brothers”) shall provide, or caused to be provided, written notice of such agreement or other arrangement to Plaintiff’s counsel [Plaintiffs’ counsel], and such written noticeshallincludeacopyof anysuch agreementor arrangement,oriftheagreement or arrangement is oral, then a written summary of any such oral agreement or arrangement. 6. IN FURTHERANCE OF THE FOREGOING RESTRAINTS, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Altman Brothers, or any successors thereto, shall be required to cooperatewith Plaintiff Ms. Suber incarrying outtheintentofthis Order.

7. IN FURTHERANCE OF THE FOREGOING RESTRAINTS, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in accordance with Rule 65 of the Fed. R. Civ. P. and this Court’s inherent equitable power to issue provisional remedies ancillary to its authority to provide final equitable relief, Defendants Sclavos or Prometheus Ventures and their officers, directors, agents, representatives, successors or assigns and heirs, and all persons acting inconcertor inparticipationwith any of them,and any banks, savings and loan associations, credit card companies, credit card processing agencies, merchant acquiring banks, financial institutions, or other companies or agencies that engage in the processing or transfer of money and/or real or personal property, who

receiveactualnoticeof this Order bypersonalserviceor otherwise, are, withoutprior approval of the Court, temporarily restrained and enjoined from transferring, disposingof,concealingorsecreting anySubjectSclavosAssets,orotherwisepaying or transferring any of the Subject Sclavos Assets into or out of any accounts or arrangements associated with or utilized by, directly or indirectly, any of Defendants SclavosorPrometheusVenturesoranyotherDefendants,exceptasexpresslysetforth further herein. 8. IN FURTHERANCE OF THE FOREGOING RESTRAINTS, IT IS FURTHER ORDEREDthattheCourtgrantsPlaintiffMs.Subertherighttomakeanyfilingswith any government authority or agency as may be advisable or necessary in accordance with applicablelaw, including without limitation, notice(s) of pendency of action (lis pendens) infurtheranceof theintentof this Order. 9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon two (2) days written notice to the Court and Plaintiff’s counsel, any of Defendants Sclavos or Prometheus Ventures or restrained

thirdpartymay appear and movefor thedissolution or modification oftheprovisions of this Order concerning the restriction upon the transfer of Defendants Sclavos’s or Prometheus Ventures’ assets upon anappropriateevidentiary showing byDefendants Sclavos or Prometheus Ventures. 10.ITIS FURTHER ORDEREDthatPlaintiff shallpostacorporatesurety bond,cash or a certified or attorney’s check in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) as security,determined adequateforthepaymentof suchdamagesasany personmaybe entitled torecover as aresultof awrongfulrestraint hereunder. 11.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Sclavos’s or Prometheus Ventures’

answering papers, if any, shall be filed with the Court and served upon the attorneys forPlaintiff by MARCH , 2021.

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY 12.ITISFURTHERORDEREDthatPlaintiff’smotionforexpediteddiscoveryinrespect of allDefendants is GRANTED; thatPlaintiff shallservewiththis Order requests for disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 34, and that Defendants shall produce documents responsive to such requests on or before MARCH , 2021, in respect of requests tobemadewithin thecategoriessetforthbelow: i. Any and all financial and accounting records of Defendants Stratton Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures, LLC, and any trusts in which either or both of these Defendants holds an interest or of which either or both of these Defendants is or may becomeabeneficiary. ii. Defendants Stratton Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures, LLC shall be required to

provideafullaccountingoftheSubjectSclavosAssets(a)asofAugust15,2017,1 and(b)asofthedateofthisOrder(the“FullAccountingoftheSclavosAssets”), and to the extent that there is a difference between the Full Accounting of the SclavosAssetsasofAugust15,20172andasofthedateofthisOrder,Defendants Stratton Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures, LLC, shall be required to explain the difference, including nature, type and kind of any and all sales, transfers or other dispositions of any Subject Sclavos Assets, any and all proceeds generated therefrom and how any such proceeds were used, transferred or otherwise disposed;

iii. Any and all agreements, instruments and/or other documents relating to the Collingwood Property, including, without limitation, those agreements, instruments and/or other documents, that: (x) relate to the ownership of the Collingwood Property, including, for the avoidance of doubt and without limitation, the land, all of the buildings thereon, other improvements thereto and all of the rights and interests (of any

1August15,2017 is theday on which Ms. Suber began working for DefendantVVP Services. 2August15,2017 is theday on which Ms. Suber began working for DefendantVVP Services. kind or nature whatsoever) accruing to or held in or with respect to the CollingwoodProperty;or (y) affect or could reasonably be expected to affect the disposition (including, without limitation, through sale or otherwise), or value, of the Collingwood Property, including, for the avoidance of doubt and without limitation, the

land, all of the buildings thereon, other improvements thereto and all of the rights and interests (of any kind or nature whatsoever) accruing to or held in orwith respect totheCollingwood Property; iv. AnaccountingofALLpersons(includingbothnaturaland otherpersons)holding any interestor right,whether director indirect, inor totheCollingwood Property, including the extent and value of such interest, and including the name and the current physical address, telephone number and email address for ALL such persons and, if different, aphysical address and emailaddress at which eachsuch person canbeservedwith documents in this proceeding;

v. Any and allagreements with theAltman Brothers; vi. Anyand allsettlement agreements or other arrangements inrespectof the claims, causesofactionandothermattersarisingfromorrelatingtotheproceedingknown asPrometheusVentures,LLCandSclavosv.CNBDefaultLoanAcquisitions,LP, etal,CaseNo.208CV01332(SuperiorCourt,LosAngelesCounty,WestDistrict) (Sept. 18,2020); vii. All agreements and other documents, including all relevant business records, whichillustratetheinterestheld byDefendantsSclavosandPrometheusVentures in the Collingwood Property, including the portion of the proceeds arising from such sale or other disposition, to which Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures are,willormaybe entitled;and viii. All records (including, without limitation, all bank account statements and all issuedand/orclearedchecks)forallbank accountsof,orheldbyorforthebenefit for, (x) Christopher Nordling, the former Chief Operating Officer of Defendants

Vision Venture Partners, LLC and VVP Services, LLC, and (y) HD Films, LLC, ineachcasefromandafterNovember1,2017(includingallbankaccountrecords prior tothe merger ofHD Films, LLCwithan intoTwin Galaxies, LLC3).4 13.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all records for all bank accounts referenced in this Order shall be accompanied by declaration of the custodian of such records, or such other person authorized to make such a declaration, in each case pursuant to 28 U.S. § 1746, and such declaration shall contain the following language in respect of all records: i. “Theattached copiesof therecords/documents aretrueand accurate copies of the

originalrecords/documentsthatweremadeandkeptintheregularcourseof[insert thenameoftheorganization furnishing therecords/documents];

3HD Films, LLC d/b/a Vision Entertainment, a Florida limited liability company, on or about August 3, 2018, was merged with and into Twin Galaxies, LLC with Twin Galaxies as the entity surviving the merger. See Articles of Merger for Florida Limited Liability Company available at http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/ConvertTiffToPDF?storagePath=COR%5C2 018%5C0808%5C00225969.Tif&documentNumber=L16000151560 (last visited August 20, 2020). 4November 1, 2017, is believed to be one day prior to the Sclavos Concealed Loan as discussed in ¶¶ 58 (including Footnote 37 thereto) 90, 127, 153, 172 of, and Exhibit 26 to, the FAC and ¶¶ 61(including Footnote39thereto), 99,136, 162,181 of,and Exhibit26to, theSAC. ii. the attached copies of the records/documents were made at or near the time that theinformation containedtherein was recorded orotherwisedocumented; iii. it was the regular practice of [insert the name of the organization furnishing the records/documents] to record the information set forth in the attached records/documents;

iv. the declarant is familiar with the records and the circumstances under which they weremade and aremaintained;and v. [insert the name of the organization furnishing the records/documents] is not a party to the action in connection with which these records/documents were required and willbeused.” 14. ITIS FURTHER ORDERED thatDefendants arehereby given notice thatfailure to attend the hearing scheduled therein may result in confirmation of the relief provided herein, immediate issuance of the requested preliminary injunction to takeeffectimmediatelyuponexpirationordissolutionofthetemporaryorder,and

may otherwise extend for the pendency of this action upon the same terms and conditions ascomprisethisOrder.Defendantsareherebygivenfurthernoticethat they may be deemed to have actual notice of the issuance and terms of such preliminary injunction and any act by them or anyone of them in violation of any of theterms thereof may beconsidered andprosecuted as contemptof this Court. 15.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that service of this Order and all related documents (includingsubpoenas)maybeeffectedthroughelectronicmail,U.S.P.S.mail,express courierservicessuchas FedEx andU.P.S.andanymeansallowedorallowablebythe FederalRules of CivilProcedure. 16.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise provided herein, the Temporary Restraining Order shall remain in effect through the end of the day (11:59 p.m. prevailing eastern time) on the date for hearing on the Order to Show Case for Preliminary Injunction set forth above, or such other and further date(s) as set by the Court

SOORDERED.

_________________________________________ THE HONORABLE ALISON J. NATHAN New York, New York United States District Court Judge

DateIssued: _________________, 2021 Time Issued: ________ a.m. / p.m. prevailing eastern time UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KAREN M. SUBER, § § PLAINTIFF, § v. § Case No. 1:20-cv-8177– AJN (Netburn) § VVP SERVICES, LLC, § VISION VENTURE PARTNERS, LLC, § DECLARATION OF ELEVEN STONES, LP, § KAREN M. SUBER AMIT RAIZADA, § PROMETHEUS VENTURES, LLC, AND § FILED UNDER SEAL STRATTON SCLAVOS, § § DEFENDANTS. § § § I,KarenM.Suber,declareunderpenaltyofperjurypursuantto28U.S.C.§1746thattheforegoing is trueand correct. 1. I reviewed, and I am aware of the contents set forth in the “Second Amended Complaint,”which was filed onWednesday, March 10 [D.E. 92]. 2. As stated in the Second Amended Complaint, the allegations I have made against Defendants arebased upon my personalknowledgeas tomyown acts and observations and upon information and beliefas toallother matters alleged therein. 3. In furtherance of my Ex Parte Application and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Asset Restraining Order, Selected Expedited Discovery and Order to Share Cause for Preliminary Injunction (the “TRO Application”), I respectfully set forth the following specific facts that clearly show that I am currently suffering, and will continue to suffer, immediate and irreparable injury, loss, and damage as a result of Defendants’ conduct, and that such current, immediate irreparable injury, loss, and damage will continue to be exacerbated before any of the Defendants canbeheardinopposition. 4. As a result of Defendants’ fraudulent conduct, which included intentional and material misrepresentations of then-current material facts and other forms of fraudulent inducement, in2017, Imoved clear across the country fromNew YorkCity to Los Angeles. And

indoingso, I incurred substantialfinancialand other costs, including significantdisruptionto my family’s life, including the life of my then-nine-year-old daughter. If, among other then-current facts,Ihadknown(a)thatDefendantSclavoswas then-illiquidorinsolvent,or(b)thatDefendant Sclavos was already-then suffering from the Sclavos Drug Problem, as discussed in ¶ 95 of the Second Amended Complaint, I never would have accepted the position with Defendant VVP Services, LLC. I also never wouldhaveaccepted the role–clearacross thecountry –withoutthe commitmentof equitycompensation thatDefendants expressly made. 5. Because of Defendants’ conduct, as set out in my Detailed Resignation Letter, which is Exhibit 24 to the Second Amended Complaint (and defined in ¶ 56 thereof), and based

onmyconsultation with a law firmwith aspecialty practice areaof legal ethics, whichI engaged as my legal counsel, I resigned from my role as Deputy General Counsel on January 22, 2018 ator about9:30 a.m. PacificDaylightTime,after less than six months of working with and for theDefendants. Atthattime,inconsultationwithmylegalcounsel,Imadethedeterminationthat I could no longer work for or with the Defendants and comply with my ethical obligations as an attorney under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. On January 22, 2018, at or about 9:30a.m.PacificDaylightTime,adateandtimeIwillrememberfortherestofmy life,Iresigned without having another job. I remember, and will remember, that date and time, because I stood up to individuals – Defendants Raizada and Sclavos – whom I describe as “bullies” on the “corporate playground,” and I effectively said through the Detailed Resignation Letter, the equivalentof:“No,Iwillnothelporaidyouinwhatyouseektodo,whichistobenefityourselves tothedetrimentof others.” 6. TO BE CLEAR: I DID NOT GO TO HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, AND INVEST MY TIME, MONEY, AND EFFORTS INTO BECOMING A LAWYER, IN

ORDERTOHELPINDIVIDUALSSUCHASDEFENDANTSSCLAVOSANDRAIZADA –INDIVIDUALS WHOHAVE LIVED, AND WHOCONTINUE TOLIVE PRIVILEGED EXISTENCES – DO HARM TO OTHERS. I DID NOT WORK FOR YEARS AT TWO MAJOR LAW FIRMS TO BUILD MY SKILL SET AS A LAWYER ONLY TO LET INDIVIDUALS SUCH AS DEFENDANTS SCLAVOS AND RAIZADA USE MY SKILLS IN FURTHERANCE OF THEIR OWN PECUNIARY GAINS, AGAIN, TO THE DETRIMENT AND HARM TO OTHERS. I HAVE ALREADY PRESENTED TO THE COURT EVIDENCE ILLUSTRATING THE CONDUCT OF DEFENDANTS, AND I HAVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT I CAN, AND I WILL, SUBMIT TO THE

COURT AS THIS PROCEEDING CONTINUES THAT WILL PROVE BEYOND A DOUBT THAT DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN FRAUDULENT CONDUCT THAT HAS DONE IRREPARABLE HARM, INJURY, AND DAMAGE TO ME AND OTHERS, AND THAT SUCHIRREPARABLEHARM, INJURY,AND DAMAGE IS CONTINUING. 7. At the time of my resignation, I was in Los Angeles, forced to look for new employmentwithoutthebenefitofbeingemployedandwithoutthebenefitofhavinganincoming salary, which made, and has made, the task of finding new employment as an executive a Herculeantask. WhataddedtotheHerculeantaskwasDefendantSclavos’sdefamatorycomments about me to third parties, including, for example, David Robbins, Esq., of Shamrock Holdings, amongothers,whichdefamatorycommentshavegoneuncheckedandun-rescindedforalmosttwo years now, andtheeffects have lingered and arecontinuing,alldamaging myreputation. 8. And,foranextendedperiodoftime,Ihadtomaintaintwohouseholdsandlookfor anewpositionatthesametime. Infact, Ihavehadtosignificantlypivotinmycareerchoices,and indoing so,Ihavehadto use mysavings tobuild myfuture, which I wouldnothavehad to have

doneif Defendants hadnotmadeintentionalmisrepresentationsand concealmentsof then-current andexistingmaterialfacts.Asofthisdate,notwithstandingextensiveemploymentsearches(which Ican,andwill, demonstratewithobjectively verifiabledata)and thepivotin my careerchoices,I have not yet found a full-time position as an executive. Given the financial and other resources, including without limitation, the time I wasted working for Defendants, I have had to change entirely theplanning for myretirement and for mydaughter’s educationalfuture. I am almost53 years old, and at this juncture, I believe my financial future is, or will be, permanently changed, following a different trajectory than if I had not accepted employment as the Deputy General Counselof VVP Services,unless I ammadewholefor thedamages, harm, and injury Defendants

haveinflicted and are inflicting on me. 9. I was told by Defendant Raizada, and Raizada promised, that I would receive a grant of equity – specifically a “couple of points” of equity in Vision Venture Partners, VVP Services, and their respective affiliates. Defendant Raizada made this promise, on behalf of his co-conspirator Sclavos, with Defendants Raizada and Sclavos being principals of Defendant entities, for which the entities are vicariously liable, and as an overt act pursuant to and in furtherance of the VVP Fraudulent Enterprise and the VVP Conspiracy. If Defendants are not required to perform their promise, and if Defendants are not made to perform, and complete, an accounting of the profits of the VVP Fraudulent Enterprise, I will continue to suffer irreparable damage, harm,and injuryas aresultofDefendants’ fraudulent conduct. 10. Having worked around them full time, I am 100% CERTAIN that if Defendants are provided with notice of the TRO Application, Defendants will endeavor to further hide any assets that Defendants, particularly Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures, may have to

satisfytheirobligationstomeandtoothers,includingtheCollingwoodProperty(asdefined inthe Proposed Emergency Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order, Asset Restraining Order, Selected Expedited Discovery Order,andOrder toShow CauseforPreliminary Injunction (the“Proposed TRO”),attached as Exhibit1 tothe TRO Application). 11. Defendantspracticeobfuscationonaregularbasis,andIhavepersonallyseenthem do this. For example, even though Defendant Raizada continues to maintain that he does not controlDefendantElevenStones,L.P.,includinginatleasttwolegalproceedingsgoingonacross the United States, on multiple occasions throughout my tenure with VVP Services, I observed DefendantRaizadadirectthebusiness affairs of Eleven Stones, L.P.,on aregular basis.

12. In fact, I believe, based upon due diligence that I have done, that the Collingwood Property may be the last valuable asset in which Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures holdaninterestthatisavailabletosatisfytheequitableandotherreliefthatIhaverequested inthe Second Amended Complaint. 13. What is equally alarming is that even if the Collingwood Property is not the last valuableassetinwhichDefendantsSclavosandPrometheusVenturesholdaninterest,Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures have been actively engaged in asset sales, including from Sclavos’s extensive and valuable wine collection and at least one of Sclavos’s Bentleys (specifically, a sport utility vehicle). And, I believe that the proceeds from the asset sales will be used to fuel the excessive “Hollywood,” “Keeping-up-with-the-Kardashians” lifestyle that Defendant Sclavos has been living, which lifestyle is steeped in fantasy and well beyond his means. In fact, the stories of his purportedly “million dollar” Christmas parties were the stuff of legend in Los Angeles, with his assistant, Tanji, at one point suggesting that Sclavos’s infinity pool at the Collingwood Property overlooking the Hollywood Hills and the L.A. skyline be frozen-over so that attendees at the 2017 Christmas party could ice skate. The point here is that there is plenty of objectively verifiable evidence illustrating that Defendant Sclavos is to cash as an elephant is to peanuts. If Sclavos is able to liquidate any assets, I fully believe that the proceeds will be used faster than anyone - EXCEPT THIS COURT - can say, “FREEZE.” 14. □□□ T respectfully request that the Court grant the TRO Application and, ultimately, the preliminary injunction preventing, among other things stated in the Proposed TRO: (a) Defendants Sclavos and Prometheus Ventures or any other Defendant, acting individually, together with other Defendants or together with other third parties, and (b) other third parties holding interests in the Collingwood Property from selling or otherwise disposing of her, his or their interest(s) in the Collingwood Property (or the proceeds arising therefrom or relating thereto) in any manner other than as provided in the Proposed TRO until this proceeding has been finally and fully resolved, all as further specified in the Proposed TRO.

By: : Karen Ve Executed on: March 10, 2021

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ae TT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK eee

Suber, Plaintiff, 20-cv-8177 (AJN) —V— ORDER VVP Services, et al., Defendants.

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The Court has received Plaintiff's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order, asset restraining order, selected expedited discovery, and order to show cause for preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Such requests are only granted in extraordinary circumstances where a party can meet the multiple “stringent” requirements for obtaining ex parte injunctive relief. See Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423, 438-49 (1974). Under this standard, Plaintiff must show not just a “mere possibility of irreparable harm,” but that she “is ‘/ikely to suffer irreparable harm if equitable relief is denied.’” AJM Int'l Trading LLC v. Valcucine SpA., 188 F. Supp. 2d 384, 387 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citing JSG Trading Corp. v. Tray—Wrap, Inc., 917 F.2d 75, 79 (2d Cir.1990)). The potential injury must be “actual and imminent.” Tucker Anthony Realty Corp. v. Schlesinger, 888 F.2d 969, 975 (2d Cir. 1989). Rule 65(b)(A) requires that “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). No such showing has been made in this application. The primary bases for Plaintiffs’ request is that Defendant Sclavos has “‘whittled away his purported fortune over the last several

years on an excessive lifestyle,” including an alleged drug problem, and that 107 days ago, Defendants recently put an approximately $30 million property on the market. See Pl. Br. for Ex Parte TRO at 10. These allegations do not establish “imminent” harm and do not meet the “extremely high” bar for demonstrating the need for immediate, ex parte relief without giving Defendants notice and opportunity to respond. Firemen’s Ins. Co. of Newark, New Jersey v. Keating, 753 F. Supp. 1146, 1150 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s motion for the requested ex parte relief is therefore DENIED. Within one week of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this Order and the moving papers should not be docketed on ECF.

SO ORDERED. AN i Dated: March 11, 2021 \) i New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge

N Amos Jones Amos N. Jones, Attorney at Law 1150 K Street Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20005-6809 |. A VW F | R M Telephone: (202) 351-6187 | Facsimile: (202) 478-1654 www.amosjones.com | jones@amosjoneslawfirm.com WASHINGTON, OD.C.

via electronic mail to NathanNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov

Thursday March 18, 2021 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan, Judge United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007

RE: Response to Order dated 3/11/21 on Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) in Karen M. Suber v. VVP Services, LLC, et al, Case No. 1:20-cv-8177 — AJN (Netburn) Dear Judge Nathan:

We thank you for your consideration of Plaintiff’s ex parte Application referenced above, on which you ruled one week ago today. In accordance with your ruling that “Plaintiff shall show cause why this Order and the moving papers should not be docketed on ECF,” we respectfully submit that no cause can be shown as far as Plaintiff’s interests go because, in light of the denial in the March 11 Order, we promptly notified Defendants and Defendants’ counsel of our desire to apply for a temporary restraining order and simultaneously tendered for their consent all moving papers including the attachments (with Plaintiff’s declaration marked “UNDER SEAL,” as it was in the ex parte approach of last week). Thus, all application materials — amended to reflect that the application not made ex parte and nearly identical to those already filed ex parte — were disclosed already to the non-movants as we followed the process under the Individual Practices in Civil Cases Procedure 3.K., published on page SIX and available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/AJN%20Nathan%20Indivi dual%20Rules%200f%20Practice%20in%20Civil%20Cases. pdf. Though Defendants’ counsel this afternoon wrote back denying consent and offering a starting- point range of unspecified dates, we await their agreeing to several specific dates that we set out in our notice to them so that our Application can specify several as per Procedure 3.K. Defendants’ Counsel Van Vliet notified us via electronic mail at 6:22 p.m. today that she is “check[ing] people’s calendars” before getting back with us once more, aware that we intended to file today but assured at 6:26 p.m. via electronic mail that we now “can live with Friday,” as undersigned counsel put it. Defendants’ counsel needs a bit more time, but they have had the Application and all related documents in hand since Wednesday.

We envision re-appearing on ECF with our Application, including the required documents related to it, as soon as Defendants’ counsel equips us with affirmations of specific dates we pre- confirmed with them. With the Application being filed openly tonight or Friday and nearly identical to that which we had presented ex parte, we cannot show cause why that ex parte pleading functionally already disclosed fully to the non-movants should not be docketed. Respectfully submitted,

Amos N. Jones | CC: Su Mi Park, Counsel to Plaintiff Karen M. Suber, Plaintiff

Amos Jones is admitted in the District of Columbia and before the U.S. District Court, LY as □□ District of Maryland, the U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, the AS □□□ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the isi al □ U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia i SOP 100 Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United Oy □ States. intel |\\ □□□ □ Kay