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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                27

28

ELECTRONICALLY

FILED
DENNIS YAN (257854) Superior Court of Catifornia,
100 Pine St #1250 County of San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 94111 95/22/2017,
Phone (415) 867-5797 BY:KALENE APOLONIO

Attorney for defendants Deputy Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION

BRYANT FU and CRYSTAL LEI, Case No.: CGC-17-556769

Plaintiffs, REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF

vs. PROCESS

Date: May 30, 2017

Time: 9:30 am

Dept.: 302

Reservation No.: 04270530-05

TINA YAN et al.,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS COMMIT MORE PERJURY.

In the face of damning evidence that the Proof of Service of Summons filed by plaintiffs are
perjured, plaintiffs and their lackeys Jacky Poon and Peter Poon double down on their lies and
submitted false and perjured declarations in opposition to the instant motion. The declarations
submitted by Jacky Poon and Peter Poon state that there are videos supporting their assertions.
Knowing those assertions are false, defendants’ attorney on May 15, 2017 asked plaintiffs’
attorney Mark Serlin to produce those purported videos by May 19, 2017. As anticipated,

plaintiffs failed to produce any video to back up their story.

Defendants had asked the Court to refer the instant case to the District Attorney for investigation
of perjury. Since plaintiffs, rather than coming clean, now accuse defendant and their attorney of}
falsehood, then surely plaintiffs have no objection to referring this case to the DA. The Court
should do so, otherwise there is no disincentive to lying in the courts and whoever has gotten

away with perjury will continue to do so.27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ SPECIOUS ARGUMENT THAT ONLY ACTUAL NOTICE IS REQUIRED

Actual notice is not the sole criteria for service of summons. Even though case authorities stated
that strict compliance is relaxed where there is evasion of service, substantial compliance with
statutory requirements are still required for due process. "[C]ompliance with the statutory
procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.] Thus, a}
default judgment entered against a defendant who was not served with a summons in the manner

prescribed by statute is void. [Citation.]" ( Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24

Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.) The due process concern is more pronounced where substituted

service is involved. To obtain in personam jurisdiction, the form of substituted service utilized

must be reasonably calculated to give an interested party actual notice of the proceedings and an
opportunity to be heard, so that traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice implicit in
due process are satisfied [ Zirbes v. Stratton (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1407, 1416]. To effect
substituted service, the papers must be left in the presence of a competent member of the
household or a person apparently in charge of the office, place of business, or usual mailing
address, who is at least 18 years of age and who must be informed of contents of the papers

served [Code Civ. Proc. § 415.20(b) ].

Here, plaintiffs had filed false proof of services and false declarations, but even if what they
allege happened, that is, if someone on the second floor looked out the window, there is no
evidence that that person was member of the household or been informed of contents of the
papers being served, or having been so informed, evaded service. The plaintiffs bear the burden

of proof on the issue of validity of service of process [Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court

(1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 789, 793. Here, plaintiffs first allege that defendant Thai Ming Chiu
“look out” the window. Confronted with evidence that he was not in the country, plaintiffs now
allege that some unknown person looked out the window. Plaintiffs’ allegations are all lies, but
even if someone had looked out the window as plaintiffs allege, that is not in itself sufficient to

satisfy the requirements of substituted service. Likewise, the same argument applies to

nv27

28

plaintiffs’ false allegation that a person other than defendant Tina Yan was looking out a second

floor window.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, defendants THAI MING CHIU and TINA YAN’s motion to quash

service of summons and to set aside the entry of defaults should be granted.

Dated: 5/20/2017
By: /s/ Dennis Yan

Attorney for defendantsPROOF OF SERVICE
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):

REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS

DECLARATION OF DENNIS YAN IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF PROCESS

on the following parties by eserve:
Mark Serlin
Attorney for plaintiffs

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.

Dated: 5/20/2017

DENNIS YAN
Attorney for defendants