Report in English:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
A plea to jurisdiction is not a final determination regarding the merits of the case. A plea to jurisdiction filed in the first lawsuit simply states that the court here, the 334th District Court in Harris County, Texas, does not have jurisdiction, because the property (the Temple) in California is an issue in the case. For example, we can file the first lawsuit, one of the three lawsuits, against Defendants in California, because Phat Quang Temple is located in California. Of importance to note is the Order stated that the “claims are dismissed without prejudice.” It means that we can refile the first lawsuit in California.
We are going to appeal the judge’s decision in the first lawsuit, because filing the lawsuit in Texas makes more sense, since all of the Defendants reside in Texas. Also, the 30-day deadline to appeal is not until some time in March 2017.
The order granting the Defendants’ plea to the jurisdiction is not “final,” because the Court only granted the plea of the jurisdiction of certain Defendants. However, the Bui Defendants’ (the buyers’) plea to the jurisdiction is not set until February 6, 2017. Once there is an order as to all Defendants, we will appeal. Our Appellate Team is ready.
Again, let me restate: the Order that Rev. Giac Dang mentioned concerns only the Order as to the Plea to Jurisdiction, which means The Texas Court advised that it has no jurisdiction (because the Phat Quang Temple is located in California).
IT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CASE WAS TRIED BY THE 334TH COURT ON THE MERITS. IT ALSO DOES NOT MEAN THAT “THE COURT DENIED OR CANCELED THE LAWSUIT BECAUSE THE CASE HAS NO BASIS/MERITS.”
ANY MISLEADING STATEMENT (SUCH AS DEFENDANTS WON THE CASE ON THE MERITS, OR THE COURT CANCELED THE LAWSUIT BECAUSE IT HAS NO BASIS) CONSTITUTES A SERIOUS MISREPRESENTATION OF THE LAW AND THE FACTS. THIS MISLEADING STATEMENT ALSO SADLY INSULTS THE READERS’ INTELLIGENCE.
As indicated, UBCV is in the process of appealing this Order. Why do we need to appeal this Order in the first lawsuit? The reason is bringing the lawsuit in Texas is more convenient, since all of the Defendants reside in Texas. Of course, we can refile the first lawsuit in California anytime, since this case involved fraud, and we have plenty of time. But it makes more sense to file in Texas. Most importantly, contrary to Rev. TGD’s letter, the 30-day deadline is not until March 2017. The order granting UBCV Texas’ Plea to the Jurisdiction is not “FINAL,” because the Court only granted the plea to the jurisdiction for the UBCV Texas Defendants.
Report in Vietnamese:
Chúng ta sẽ có thông tin chính thức bằng Anh và Việt Ngữ từ “PTTPGQT (IBIB).”
Kính Thưa Quí Vị, UBCV (Giáo Hội Phật Giáo Việt Nam Thống Nhấ) có tất cả Ba vụ kiện.
