Party Statement: CINDY YU et al VS. SHAWN SHAO DAN YU et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                OAC

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Sep-17-2013 03:07 pm

Case Number: CGC-13-533308
Filing Date: Sep-17-2013 03:07 pm
Filed by: RONNIE OTERO

Juke Box: 001 Image: 04204652

DECLARATION OF

CINDY YU et al VS. SHAWN SHAO DAN YU et al

001004204652

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.09/17/2813 11:49 eg KRASHNA LAW ™@ PAGE 06/07
use: ,
1 ||Omar Krashna (SBN 214567) 2
KRASHNA LAW FIRM O13 SEP | cs
2 17700 Edgewater Drive, Suite 710 Cu,
Oakland, CA 94621 60uR7
3 510.836.2999(ph) ~_
510.836.2900(fax) Te
4 S
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
5
6 I E SUPERIOR COURT FOR T! iT, OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN CISCO
7 (Unlimited Jurisdiction)
8 CINDY YU, an individual, and } Case No.: CGC-13-533308
9 || TOSHTYUKI MUSHA, an individual,
10 a
u Plaintiffs, 2
‘
nD < DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF
‘ MUSHA IN SUPPORT OF REPLY TO
13 vs: $ OPPOSITION
}
14 \
SHAWN SHAO DAN YU, an individual, ’ Date: September 19, 2013
15 TTUN YANG YU, an individual, and }
LI ZI CHEN, an individual, an persons 4 ae
16 lunknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, < Time: 9:30 am
7 title, estate, lien, or interest in the property é
described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiffs’ ‘ Dept: 501
18 title, or any cloud on Plaintifts’ title thereto; and ‘
Does 1 through 20, inclusive. ‘
19 BY FAX
20 Defendants. ;
21 ;
22 2
23 2
24 {
25 i
4
26
27
28 lopcraration- KRASHNA LAW FIRM
7700 Rdgewater Drive, Suite 710
Oakland, CA 94621
510.836.2999 (tel)/5 10.836,2900( Fax)

403M580384808.tf 9117/2013 12:00:11 PM89/17/2813 11:49 é KRASHNA LAW FIRM

CON DHA Bw N

10

5 PAGE 87/07

I, Plaintiff TOSHIYUKI MUSHA, declare as follows:

My wife and | are college graduates and very conservative regarding our monetary savings and
investments. We would have never invested out life savings and innumerable hours into rehabbing,
renovating, and legalizing the downstairs living unit at the subject property, if it weren’t for defendants’
promises of conveyance of an ownership interest in the property to my wife.

My wife and I corrected illegal construction defendants previously performed at the property and|
we jointly traversed the bureaucratic channels of the city of San Francisco’s building, zoning and permit

divisions to legally complete the rehabilitation and renovation of the property.

—3-—

Since we did invest our life savings into the rehabilitation and renovation of the property, we hav
no present resources with which to purchase or rent elsewhere. Based on our previous faith in defendants’
honesty, we invested into the property with the reasonable expectation of being owners, as defendants’
promised us.

Defendants’ “move-out” solution is impractical and runs counter to our assertion of title interest
in our home. Such a “solution” would be irreparably barmful to my wife, in particular, as she is home-
bound in the midst of a pregnancy. The harm to Defendants with issuance of an appropriate order to
simply be considerate neighbors will not disrupt their co-habitation of the property.

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is
true and correct, except as to those matters stated upon information and belief, and as to those matters, |

believe them to be true.

Dated: September 17, 2013

TOSHTYUKI MUSHA

DECLARATION---—---~~' Page 2 KRASHINA LAW FIRM
7700 Edgewater Drive, Suite 710

Oakland, CA 94621
510.836.2999 (tel)/5 10.836,2900 fax)

1036580384608. tf - 9/47/2013 42:00:11 PM