Stipulated Motion in BRYANT FU ET AL VS. TINA YAN ET AL| Trellis.Law

On January 31, 2017 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Chiu, Thai Ming, Liu, Kaman, Fu, Bryant, Lei, Crystal, and Chiu, Thai Min, Chiu, Thai Ming, Does 1-20, Inclusive, Liu, Kaman, Yan, Tina, for civil in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
Linda Z. Yu (SBN 303924)
39812 Mission Blvd, Ste 208
Fremont, CA 94539-3092 ELECTRONICALLY
Phone: 650-285-2389 F I L E D
Email: 1indayuesq@gmail.corn Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
Attorney for defendant and cross-complainant
THAI MING CHIU 10/25/2021
Clerk of the Court
BY: JUANITA MURPHY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Deputy Clerk

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION

6 BRYANT FU and CRYSTAL LEI, Case No.: CGC-17-556769
Plaintiffs,
9
CROSS-COMPLAINANT THAI MING
vs. CHIU'S
10 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
TINA YAN et al., PURSUANT TO ORDER DATED OCT. 4,
Defendants.
2021
12
PROOF OF SERVICE
13
And RELATED CROSS-COMPLAINT.
la Date: 11/2/2021 (continued from August 27,
15 2021)
Time: 9:30 am
16
Dept: 501
17

Pursuant to Court's Order RE: Cross-Defendant's Demurrer to Amended Cross-Complaint, date
Oct. 4, 2021, Cross-complainant THAI MING CHIU ("CHIU") hereby file this supplemental
brief addressing authorities for the proposition that a co-assignee of a judgment may maintain an
20
action to collect on a judgment while another action by a second co-assignee to collect on the
21
same judgment is pending.
22

23
RELEVANTBACKGROUND

Plaintiffs BRYANT FU and CRYSTAL LEI commenced this action on 2017-01-31 with a
26 complaint against defendants CHIU, Kaman Liu (LIU) and others. CHIU filed the cross-
27 complaint herein on 2017-06-12.

28
TONY FU, who is the father and husband of BRYANT FU and CRYSTAL LEI, had previously
1
filed an action in this court, Case no. CGC-16-553702, on 2016-08-15 with almost identical
2
allegations as in the complaint in this action, against CHIU, LIU and others. LIU filed a cross-
3
complaint in that action on APR-26-2017.

Both CHIU and LIU are co-assignees of a money judgment entered in Case no. CGC-00-311712
against TONY FU. (See DECLARATION RE ASSIGNMENT filed herein on 2021-09-17.)

TONY FU had obtained a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge sometime in 2019 in Bankruptcy
Court of Northern District of California, Case no. 17-41205 (In re: TONY DONG XING FU aka
9
Tony Fu aka Dong Xing Fu). TONY FU had filed a motion in the bankruptcy court in 2020
alleging that both CHIU and LIU have violated the bankruptcy discharge injunction by their
cross-complaints. The Hon. Charles Novack, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, issued an order on
denying FU's motion (Case: 17-41205 Doc¹ 74 Filed: 09/25/20; a copy of that order is attached
13 here to as Exhibit A). In the order, Judge Novack stated that both CHIU and LIU's cross-
complaints are not barred by FU's bankruptcy. In addition, because TONY FU has a claim
against LIU, his cross-complaint is allowed as a claim of off-set against FU's claim in Case no.
CGC-16-553702. (Jd.at pp. 5-7.) TONY FU had also filed a demurrer to the cross-complaint,
16
which was overruled on 2021-01-13.
17

i9 CALIFORNIA LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT MULTIPLE ASSIGNMENTS OF JUDGMENT

20
A judgment creditor may assign a judgment to a third person. (Civ.Code 954.) No particular
21
form of assignment is required, it is essential to the assignment of a right that the assignor
manifest an intention to transfer the right. (Cocirerell v. Title Ins. Trust Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 284,
291.) An assignment transfers the interest of the assignor to the assignee. Thereafter, "'[t]he
2& assignee "stands in the shoes" of the assignor, taking his rights and remedies, subject to any
26 defenses which the obligor has against the assignor prior to notice of the assignment.'" (Johnson
v. County of Fresno (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1087, 1096.)

27
The law anticipates that there may be more than one assignment of a judgment. Civ.Code 955.1
28
provides in relevant part that: "As between bona fide assignees of the same right for value
without notice, the assignee first giving notice of the right to the obligor in writing has priority."
1
The term "priority" refer to the right of receiving payment, not priority in terms of bringing
2
enforcement actions. [See Continental Bank v. Blethen (1970) 7 Cal. App. 3D 178, 186-187
3
(Assignee found to have priority over other assignee was entitled to judgment plus prejudgment
interest on amounts actually received by subordinate assignee.)]
5

There is no law or case authority stating that co-assignees cannot bring separate actions for
enforcement of assigned judgment. Though for economy or other reasons, any party to the
action may seek lease of court to consolidate the actions. Since plaintiffs in this action,
8
BRYANT FU and CRYSTAL LEI, are related to TONY FU in the other action, they could if
9
they so choose, seek leave of court to consolidate the actions.
10

There is also no law or case authority stating that all co-assignees have to be joined in the same
action. Though there is case authority stating that a partial assignee — an assignee of less than
13 the whole of a thing in action or less than all of an obligee's rights — may not sue alone [Stein v.

Cobb (1940) 38 Cal. App. 2D 8, 10-11] and must join the assignor and any other partial
assignees as necessary parties [Martin v.Howe (1922) 190 Cal. 187, 194]. Here, CHIU and LIU
are not partial assignees but co-assignees of the assigned judgment. It is unforeseen whether
16
CHIU or LIU, as a co-assignee, will be able to proceed with the collection action to conclusion,
17
or whether any of them will ultimately be able to collect on the assigned judgment. But since the
18
debtor is only liable for one payment of the judgment debt, any payment by the debtor to the
19
assignor before the assignment or any payment to co-assignees will be credited toward the debt
so that there is no double payment. Civ.C. (3954.5(c) provides that if the judgment debtor pays
the judgment creditor without actual notice of the assignment, such payment is credited to the
22 judgment and the assignee cannot recover the amount of the payment from the judgment debtor.
23 Satisfaction of judgment is also a defense which the judgment debtor can raise in any collection
action. [See Bank of Stockton v. Jones (1884) 65 Cal. 437 (Payment by obligor to assignor of
note before notice of assignment is defense to action on note.)]
//
26

28
CONCLUSION

3
For the above stated reasons, Cross-Defendant CHEN's demurrer should be denied, and Cross-
complainant CHIU should be granted leave to file the proposed Third Amend cross-complaint.
5

Dated: 10/22/2021

6 /s/LINDA YU
Attorney for Defendant and Cross-Complainant THAI MING CHIU
9

28
EXHIBIT A
Entered on Docket &ssssssss
September 25, 2020
EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK
e"'e
U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The following constitutes the order of the Court.
Signed: September 25, 2020

Charles Novack
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

ll In re; Case No. 17-41205 CN
CS
Chapter 7
12 TONY DONG XING FU aka Tony Fu aka
Dong Xming Fu, FINAL ORDER RE: DISCHARGED
DEBTOR'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Debtor.
14
D,O
15
j™ This order is the most recent entry in the endless litigation between Demas Yan and Tony Fu,
16
C
and it addresses Fu's request that this court hold Demas Yan, Tina Yan, Thai Ming Chiu, Ka Man
rrJ AI
Ja
17
~ Liu and their attorney, Mark Lapham in contempt for various acts which purportedly violate several
g~oo 18

19
orders of this court.'u first claims that Legal Rccovcry, LLC, which holds a large prc-petition
ro 20 judgement against him, has violated the discharge violation by pursuing its collection. As discussed

21
below, Fu is asserting this claim notwithstanding the fact that Legal Recovery's collections efforts
arc not directly aimed against him. Rcgardlcss, Fu sccks to hold Tina Yan, Legal Rccovcry, LLC's
22

23 purported owner, and Mark Lapham, Legal Recovery's attorney, in contempt for its conduct. Fu is
also a named party in ongoing litigation with some of the alleged contemnors, both as a plaintiff and
24

26 'he alleged contemnors have personal or business relationships. Tina Yan is Demas Yan's
27 mother, and she is purportedly holds the majority interest in Legal Recovery, LLC. Thai Ming Chiu
and Ka Man Liu are Demas Yan's brothers-in-law. Demas Yan, a now disbarred attorney, and Mark
28 Lapham were allegedly law partners.
I
FINAL ORDER
Ca : 17-41205 Doc¹ 74 Filed: 09/25/20 Entered: 09/25/20 14:11:05 Page 1 of 9
cross-claim defendant. Fu asserts that the post-discharge maintenance of the cross-claims against

him also violate his discharge injunction. For good measure, Fu also requests that this court sanction

Demas Yan for filing false proofs of claim in this Chapter 7 case (which has been closed for more

4 than a year). Finally, Fu requests that this court compel Demas Yan to pay sanctions which this

court entered against him by order dated June 20, 2019.
This court addresses Fu's claims ad seriatim, and will delve into the parties'engthy

litigation history only where necessary.
1. The Sierra Point Judgment.
On April 28, 2006, Sierra Point Lumber and Plywood Company, Inc. obtained a $ 221,524.28

judgment against Fu and San Francisco Building Professionals, Inc., a defunct California corporation

ll jointly owned by Fu and Yan. This judgment is unsatisfied, and Yan's Chapter 7 discharge, entered
CC

12 by this court on March 27, 2019, prevents its collection against Fu. Sierra Point Lumber assigned its
0 ~o
CI
judgment to Legal Recovery, LLC on May 31, 2019 (the "Assigned Judgment" ). Since Legal
13

14 Recovery, LLC (" Legal Recovery" ) cannot look to either of its judgment debtors for satisfaction, it
o,0
15 commenced litigation against Crystal Lei, Fu's ex-wife, in San Francisco County Superior Court on
5™
October 1,2019 to collect this debt. Lapham represents Legal Recovery in this litigation. Legal
4 16

17 Recovery alleges, among other things, that Lei and Fu orchestrated a pre-petition sham divorce,
~ o engaged in fraudulent conveyances, and allegedly used community property funds to purchase real
18
X property located at 337-341 28'" Avcnuc, San Francisco, California to which only Lci holds
4+ 19
title.'otwithstanding
o 20 that Fu is not a named party to this litigation, Legal Recovery seeks declaratory

21 relief that the Fu/Lei divorce is a sham, and that the 28'" Avenue property is part of their community
cstatc "and is liable for thc Assigned Judgment." Fu presumably dcnics thcsc allegations.

23 Paragraphs 13, 15, 17, 18 and 19 form the basis for the declaratory relief cause of action

24 against Lei. They state, in pertinent part, the following:

26 'o provide perspective, the divorce occurred several years before Fu filed his Chapter 7
27 bankruptcy. Moreover, Legal Recovery's allegations are virtually identical to causes of action pled
by Yan and related parties in dead end San Francisco County Superior Court litigation dating back to
28 2009 (which litigation has long since been dismissed).
2
ORDER
Ca:FINAL 17-41205 Doc¹ 74 Filed: 09/25/20 Entered: 09/25/20 14:11:05 Page 2 of 9
"13. The sham divorce was fraudulent, null and void ab initio and without legal
effect. Family Code 910 provides that community estate is liable for debt incurred by
either spouse before or during marriage. The property known as 337-341 28'"
Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94121 is community estate and is liable to the Assigned
Judgment.
15. FU filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2017 and obtained discharge in 2019. FU's
bankruptcy is a fraud on the court and his creditors. Even though FU currently has
obtained discharge, it does not prohibit enforcement of the assigned judgment against
third defendants. The effect of a discharge was simply to release a Bankrupt's
personal liability for repayment of the debt. The discharge is not a payment or
extinguishment of the debt itself. It simply bars future legal proceedings to enforce
the discharged debt against Bankrupts. Helms v. Holmes, 129 F.2d 263 (4'" Cir.
1942).

17. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between plaintiff and defendant
LEI concerning their respective rights and duties in that plaintiff contends that as to
legal consequences resulting from facts alleged in preceding paragraphs, the property
10 known as 337-341 28 Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94121 is community property and
is liable to the Assigned Judgment.
ll 18. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination of its rights and duties, and a declaration
CC
that the property known as 337-341 28'" Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94121 is
12
0 e,
community estate and liable to the Assigned Judgment.
CI

13
19. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the
14 circumstances in order that plaintiff may ascertain its rights and duties."
a,0
15
5™ After commencing this litigation, Legal Recovery filed a March 9, 2020 application to renew
4 16
the Assigned Judgment.
17
Bankruptcy Code ft524(a) provides in pertinent part that "a discharge in a case under this
~ o 18
title- (I) voids any judgment at any time obtained, to the extent that such judgment is a determination
X
4+ 19
of the personal liability of the debtor with respect to any debt discharged under section 727....
o 20
[and] (2) opcratcs as an injunction against thc commcnccmcnt or continuation of an action, thc
21
employment of process, or an act, to collect, recover or offset any such debt as a personal liability of
22
the debtor...." Relief for discharge violations requires a motion for contempt, and Bankruptcy Code
23
105(a) authorizes this court to hold parties in contempt and award damages for a knowing violation
I'1

24
of a Chapter 7 discharge. See Barrientos v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA., 633 F.3d 1186 (9 Cir. 2011).
25
To prevail, Fu must prove by clear and convincing evidence that there is no fair ground of doubt that
26 "In other words, civil contempt is
his Chapter 7 discharge barred Legal Recovery's lawsuit.
27
appropriate if there is no objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the creditor's conduct
28

3
ORDER
Ca:FINAL 17-41205 Doc¹ 74 Filed: 09/25/20 Entered: 09/25/20 14:11:05 Page 3 of 9
might be lawful." Taggart v. Lorenzen (In re Taggarr), 139 S.Ct. 1795, 1799 (2019). Tins Yan,
Mark Lapham and Legal Recovery do not deny that they received notice of Fu's Chapter 7

bankruptcy and the entry of his discharge.
Fu asserts that Legal Recovery's declaratory relief cause of action violates his discharge
injunction. Legal Recovery contends that Fu's discharge does not bar it from seeking to collect its

judgment against a third party. See, e.g., In re Beeney, 142 B.R. 360, 362 (Bankr.9th Cir.1992).

Both statements leave this court wanting. While inartfully drafted, Legal Recovery's declaratory
relief request appears to be twofold: first, a declaration from the court determining the bonafides of

9
Fu's divorce, and second, if the divorce is a sham, a declaration that it may proceed to enforce the

10 Assigned Judgement against the 28'" Avenue property as community property. This court construes

ll this last request as including a request that the San Francisco County Superior Court to determine the
CC

12 scope of Fu's Chapter 7 discharge.'eterminations regarding the scope of the discharge generally
0 e,
CI
require an adversary proceeding seeking declaratory relief. See Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
13

14 Procedure 7001(9); Ung v. Boni (In re Boni), 240 B.R. 381, 385-86 (Bankr. 9'ir. 1999);
a,0
15
Ruvacalba v. Munoz (In re Munoz), 287 B.R. 646, 556 (Bankr. 9 Cir. 2002). "When questions arise
5™
as to the application of the automatic stay or discharge injunction to a transaction, it is best for a
4 16

17 creditor to seek relief from the bankruptcy court"). In re Buhary, 528 B.R. 763, 773 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.
~ o 2015). While such declaratory relief actions are typically brought in bankruptcy court, the San
18
X Francisco County Superior Court may have concurrent jurisdiction to address thc scope of Fu's
4 I- 19
o 20

23
'hc court offers thc following reasoning: if onc spouse files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy with
community property interests, generally all of the community property becomes property of his
24 bankruptcy estate, and the sole spouse's Chapter 7 discharge insulates the pre-petition community
property from thc discharged, prc-petition community claims. See Bvoach v. Mi chel/ (In re Bouzas),
25 294 B.R. 318, 321 (Bankr.N.D.Cal. 2003); In re Soder/ing, 998 F.2d 730, 733 (9'" Cir. 1993); In re
Stricklund, 153 B.R. 909 (Bankr.D.N.Mex. 1993). If Legal Recovery is correct -that the divorce
26
was a sham and the 28'" Avenue property is community property - is Legal Recovery then trying to
27 enforce a discharged pre-petition community claim against pre-petition community property that is
protected by the discharge injunction? If these musings are correct, then Legal Recovery has good
28 reason to seek declaratory relief regarding the scope of the discharge injunction.
4
ORDER
Ca:FINAL 17-41205 Doc¹ 74 Filed: 09/25/20 Entered: 09/25/20 14:11:05 Page 4 of 9
discharge .

This court presumes that Legal Recovery's renewal of the Assigned Judgment is part and

parcel of its efforts to prosecute its declaratory judgment cause of action.
Fu must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that there is no objectively reasonable
basis for concluding that Legal Recovery's declaratory relief action and renewal of its judgment

might be lawful. Fu has not met his burden of proof. Legal Recovery may seek to collect the

judgment against a third party, and its litigation against Lei appears to be such an effort. Whether its
effort is misguided or violative of any vexatious litigant order against Yan falls within the purview of

the San Francisco County Superior Court. Legal Recovery also has the right to seek a judicial

10 determination of whether its attempt to collect the Assigned Judgment is on the right side of the

ll discharge injunction. Accordingly, at this preliminary stage of this litigation, Legal Recovery's
CC

12 collection efforts, including its renewals of the Assigned Judgment, do not appear to violate Fu's
0 e,
CI
discharge injunction.
13

14 2. The Cross-Claims.
c,0
15 Fu is a named party in several pieces of pre-petition San Francisco County Superior Court
5™
litigation, which remain pending. Ka Man Lieu and Thai Ming Chiu, who are named defendants in
4 16

17 these matters, have filed cross-claim/third party claims against Fu. Fu has discharged his personal
~ o liability on these claims, and he asserts that the post-discharge maintenance of these claims violate
18
X his discharge injunction.
4+ 19
o 20 A. Fu v. Yan, et al.

21 In 2016, Fu filed fraud litigation against Demas Yan and several other parties, including Ka

22 Man Liu, in San Francisco County Superior Court (Case No. CGC-16-553702; thc "Fu Litigation" ).

23 On April 26, 2017, Ka man Liu filed a cross-complaint against (among others) Fu and Lei in which

24 he asserted several claims for relief, including enforcement of a judgment, fraudulent conveyances,

26
'ee 28 U.S.C. 1334(b); Emmert v.
I'1 Taggart (In re Taggart), 548 B.R. 275, 289-90 (Bankr.
9'" Cir. 2016), aff'd, 888 F.3d 438 (9'" Cir. 2018), vacated on other grounds and remanded sub. nom.
27 Taggart v. Lorenzen, 139 S.Ct. 1795, 204 L.Ed. 2d 129 (2019). See also the advisory notes to the
2010 amendment to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7008. Given this court's holding, it does
28 not reach the issue of whether Tina Yan can be held personally liable for Legal Recovery's conduct.
5
FINAL ORDER
Ca : 17-41205 Doc¹ 74 Filed: 09/25/20 Entered: 09/25/20 14:11:05 Page 5 of 9
and aiding and abetting fraud. Here, the judgment at issue is a 2003 San Francisco County Superior

Court judgment awarded to Florence Fung and Yuet Lin Ho, which they assigned to Ka Man Liu.

The judgment now totals more than $ 200,000. Fu has discharged these cross-claims, including the

judgment, and he contends that Ka Man Liu's failure to dismiss these claims violates the discharge
injunction. Ka Man Liu disagrees, arguing that he may assert them as setoffs under Bankruptcy
Code tj553.
Fu's discharge does not bar these cross-claims to the extent they are asserted as setoffs under
Bankruptcy Code $ 553. See Carolco Television, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co. (In re

DeLaurentis Entertainment Group, Inc.), 963 F.2d 1269, 1276-77 (9'" Cir. 1992); Camelback Hosp.,
Inc. v. Buchenmaier (In re Buchenmaier), 127 B.R. 233, 237 (Bankr. 9'" Cir. 1991). Section 553
10

ll provides that:
CC

12 Except as otherwise provided in this section and in sections 362 and 363 of this title,
0 e,
this title does not affect any right of a creditor to offset a mutual debt owing by such
CI

13 creditor to the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title
against a claim of such creditor against the debtor that arose before the
14 commencement of the case .
c,0
15 Ka Man Liu's cross-claims are permissible if they are based on mutual, pre-petition obligations
5™
between Fu and him, and ifbasic concepts of fairness justify their allowance. In re Pieri, 86 B.R.
4 16

17 208, 210 (Bankr. 9th Cir. 1988). Obligations are "mutual" if "something is owed by each side," and
~ o they need not arise out of the same transaction. Davidovic/t v. 8'elton (In re Davidovitcb), 901 F.2d
18
X 1533, 1537 (10'" Cir. 1990); Tradex, Inc. v. Un/ted States (In re TML Freight, Inc.), 65 B.R. 788, 793
4+ 19
o 20 (Bankr. D.Utah 1986). The Bankruptcy Code is not an independent source of law that authorizes

21 setoff or recoupment; it instead recognizes and preserves rights that exist under non-bankruptcy law.

22 Thcrcforc, a creditor sccking to setoff or recoup a debt must establish a claim and a right to do so

23 under state or federal law. See In re Pieri, supra. The burden of proving an enforceable setoff rests

24 with the party asserting the right. Newberry Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 95 F.3d 1392, 1399

25 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing In re Cty. of Orange, 183 B.R. 609, 615 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1995)). Sctoffs arc

26 "generally favored" and a "presumption in favor of their enforcement exists." In re Buchenmaier,

27 supra, at 237-38.

28 Fu does not dispute the validity of the judgment held by Ka Man Liu and has not attempted

6
FINAL ORDER
Ca : 17-41205 Doc¹ 74 Filed: 09/25/20 Entered: 09/25/20 14:11:05 Page 6 of 9
(at this stage) to undermine the merits of his remaining cross-claims. This court leaves that task to

the Superior Court. Accordingly, Ka Man Liu's cross-claims, as potential setoffs, do not violate the

discharge injunction.
B. Bryant Fu and Crystal Lei v. Tina Yan, et al.
In 2017, Bryant Fu and Crystal Lei commenced litigation against, among others, Tina Yan,
Ka Man Liu and Thai Ming Chiu in San Francisco County Superior Court (Case No. CGC-17-

556769). On April 28, 2017, Ka man Liu filed a cross-complaint against Bryant Fu and Crystal Lei,
which also named Tony Fu as a third party defendant. While this cross-complaint is virtually

identical to the one filed by Ka Man Liu in the Fu Litigation, a distinction exists: Fu has not asserted

10 any affirmative claims for relief against Ka Man Liu in this liigation. Accordingly, these cross-

ll claims, which seek compensatory, special and exemplary damages against all cross-defendants,
CC

12 violate the discharge injunction.
0 ~o
CI
Ka Man Liu dismissed his cross-claims against Fu after Fu filing his contempt motion. He
13

14 dismissed them, however, "without prejudice." As stated above, Ka Man Liu may assert these cross-
a,0
15
claims against Fu only as potential set-offs, and this court bars him from bringing these cross-claims
5™
against Fu for any other purpose.
4 16

17 Thai Ming Chiu also filed a cross-complaint in this litigation, but did not list Tony Fu as a
~ o third party defendant. While his allegations closely hew those alleged by Ka Man Liu, he did not
18
X scck any damages or rccovcry against Fu or his propcrtics. Paragraph 13 of his cross-complaint
4+ 19
o 20 states that "Tony Fu filed a fraudulent petition for bankruptcy around May of 2017 which is pending

21 the Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of California. This complaint is not intended to

22 cnforcc or prosccutc any claims against Tony Fu or against his propcrtics, but rather for damages

23 caused by the torts of the cross-defendants, as set forth below." Given this language, Chiu's cross-

24 complaint does not violate the discharge injunction.

25 3. The Proof of Claims

26 Fu asks this court to sanction Yan for filing allegedly "fraudulent" claims in Fu's no asset

7
FINAL ORDER
Ca : 17-41205 Doc¹ 74 Filed: 09/25/20 Entered: 09/25/20 14:11:05 Page 7 of 9
Chapter 7 case.'he court declines to so. This court resolves cases and controversies that appear

before it. Fu's arguments regarding the claims do not rise to this level. Fu has discharged these

claims, his case was a "no asset" Chapter 7, and the Chapter 7 trustee, who typically is the only party
authorized to object to claims, has not done so for obvious reasons.
4. Yan's Failure to Pay Previously Imposed Sanctions.
By order dated June 20, 2019, this court sanctioned Demas Yan $ 12,908.76 for violating
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011. These sanctions were payable to Fu's then counsel,
Kornfield, Nyberg, Bender, Kuhner & Little, P.C., which assigned its rights to Fu. Yan has not paid

these sanctions, and Yan requests that this court hold Yan in contempt for failing to satisfy this debt.

10 A contempt motion is not the appropriate means to collect these sanctions, and Fu should use the

ll enforcement procedures available under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7069 to collect this
CC
debt. See Rosa/es v. Wallace (In re Wallace), 490 B.R. 898, 906-07 (Bankr. 9'" Cir. 2013).
12
0 ~o
CI

13
* * *END OF ORDER * * *
14
o,0
15
5™
4 16

17
~ o 18
X
4+ 19
o 20

28 'emas Yan filed these claims on behalf of some of his alleged co-contemnors.
8
FINAL ORDER
Ca : 17-41205 Doc¹ 74 Filed: 09/25/20 Entered: 09/25/20 14:11:05 Page 8 of 9
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
I declare that I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of 18 years, and not a party
to this action.

On this date, I served the following document(s):

CROSS-COMPLAINANT THAI MING CHIU'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF PURSUANT TO
ORDER DATED OCT. 4, 2021
7

8
on the following parties by eserve:
Charlie Yu
Atton7ey for CHEN
10

on the following parties by email pursuant to stipulate:
FU, BRYANT
LEI, CRYSTAL
13

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is

true and correct.

16
Dated: 10/24/2021
17

Bill Mora
28 Paralegal
21

Case Info

Judge

Samuel K. Feng Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 25, 2021

Case Filing Date

January 31, 2017

County

Parties

CHAO, PETER Attorney
CHAO, PETER Attorney for the Defendant
CHEN, STELLA Cross Defendant
CHIU, THAI MIN Cross Defendant
CHIU, THAI MIN Defendant
CHIU, THAI MING Cross Complainant
CHIU, THAI MING Defendant
CHOY, RANDALL PHILIP Attorneys for Defendants
DISSTON, WILLIAM LEEDS Attorneys for Defendants
DISSTON, WILLIAM LEEDS Attorney for the Defendant
DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE Defendant
FU, BRYANT Cross Defendant
FU, BRYANT Plaintiff
FU POON CORPORATION Cross Defendant
FU, TONY Cross Defendant
JOHNSON, MICHAEL KENNETH Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JOHNSON, MICHAEL KENNETH Attorney for the Plaintiff
KAPLAN, GARY M. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
KAPLAN, GARY M. Attorney for the Plaintiff
LAPHAM, MARK Attorney
LAPHAM, MARK Attorney for the Defendant
LEI, CRYSTAL Cross Defendant
LEI, CRYSTAL Plaintiff
LIU, KAMAN Cross Complainant
LIU, KAMAN Defendant
POON, TING CHAM Cross Defendant
Pro Per Attorney
Pro Per Attorney for the Plaintiff
ROES 1-10 Cross Defendant
SERLIN, MARK A Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SERLIN, MARK A Attorney for the Plaintiff
YAN, DEMAS Attorney
YAN, DEMAS Attorney for the Defendant
YAN, TINA Defendant
YU, CHARLIE W. Attorneys for Defendants
YU, LINDA Attorney
YU, LINDA Attorney for the Defendant
Lei Bai Attorney
Donald Steedman Attorney
Duy Thai Attorney
Albert Boasberg Attorney
Stewart Kellar Attorney
William Norman Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Brian Healy Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: BRYANT FU ET AL VS. TINA YAN ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties