Preview
MU
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Oct-31-2012 11:27 am
Case Number: CGC-10-500934
Filing Date: Oct-31-2012 11:26
Filed by: CAROL BALISTRERI
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03823917
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
CATHAY BANK, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORPORATION VS. RAYMOND
XIANG ZHANG et al
001003823917
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Co me YN DW BF WN =
N RON ND a a a ei
BN RRR RB E SF CGae ABA RESBHR AS
| Chijeh Hu (SBN 241271) F (
| Maureen McCuaig (SBN 279036) s T
Scott Nenni (SBN 280990) “Peron Court of
| CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Cunty of San Halvor
1440 Broadway, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612 OCT 81 2012
2
Telephone: (510) 832-1686 RK OE Ty
} Fax: (510) 251-1155 By. 4p PAE COurT
uty Cher
Attorney for Defendants/Cross Complainants,
RAYMOND ZHANG, et al.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CATHAY BANK, a California banking Case No. CGC-10-500934
Corporation
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
Plaintiff, FOR ORDER ALLOWING SHORTENED
RESPONSE TIMES AND ADVANCING
vs. HEARING DATE
RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, et al., DISCOVERY
Defendants. Date: October 31, 2012
Time: 11:00 a.m.
Dept.: 302
To all parties and their attorneys of record:
Defendants RAYMOND ZHANG (“ZHANG”) et al applies for an order allowing
shortened motion response times and advanced the hearing date for its motion to submit tardy
expert witness list and/or augment expert witness list, currently set to be heard on November 26,
2012.
This application is made under Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 (b)(c) on the grounds that: “The
court, or a judge thereof, may prescribe a shorter time.”
-l-
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING RESPONSE TIMES AND ADVANCING HEARING DATEw
1
12 |
Plaintiff has not previously applied to any judicial officer for similar relief.
This application is based on the complaint on file in this case, the attached declarations of
Maureen McCuaig and Scott Nenni, a memorandum of points and authorities, all pleadings,
documents, records, and files in this action, and such oral and documentary evidence as may be
presented at the hearing.
DATED: October a\ , 2012 CJH & ASSOCIATES
Mindi la
Attorney for Defendants,
RAYMOND ZHANG, et al.
CERTIFICATION OF NOTIFICATION
I am an attorney for Defendants in this action. In accordance with California Rules of
Court, Rule 3.1203, at approximately 9:49am on October 30, 2012, I notified opposing counsel
Kenneth Russak and Hanna Raanan by email and fax that I would be appearing ex parte on
October 31, 2012 for an order shortening response times and advancing the hearing date of
Defendants’ motion to submit tardy expert witness list and/or augment expert witness list. ] have
attached the email, fax cover sheet and confirmation pages to my declaration as Exhibit A.
Counsel for Plaintiff responded via email that they would not oppose Defendants request. Said
email response is contained within the same email string attached as Exhibit A.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed in Oakland, California on
October A\ , 2012 — nh
aureen MeCuaig (4Z
-2-
DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING RESPONSE TIMES AND ADVANCING HEARING DATEoe YN DWH FF YW N
10
Chijeh Hu (SBN 241271)
Maureen McCuaig (SBN 279036)
Scott Nenni (280990)
CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1440 Broadway, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 832-1686
Fax: (510) 251-1155
Attorney for Defendants/Cross Complainants,
RAYMOND ZHANG, et al.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CATHAY BANK, a California banking Case No. CGC-10-500934
Corporation
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF
Plaintiff, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE
vs. APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING
SHORTENED RESPONSE TIMES AND
RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, et al., ADVANCING HEARING DATE
Defendants. DISCOVERY
Date: October 31, 2012
Time: 11:00 a.m.
Dept.: 302
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff served its Demand for Exchange of Expert Witness Lists via mail on September
19, 2012, thereby making the date of the exchange October 15, 2012. Plaintiff served their expert
witness list via mail on October 12,2012. Decl. of Nenni, 43. After difficulties in finding an
expert willing to be involved in this litigation, counsel for Defendants obtained a cultural expert
on October 18, 2012 and served notice with the required declaration on counsel for Plaintiff on
the same date. Decl. of Nenni, §4. Plaintiff then demanded on October 22, 2012 that Defendants
withdraw their expert witness list, and filed their motion to strike the expert witness list on
October 23, 2012. Decl. of Nenni, 95.
Defendants attempted to meet & confer with Plaintiff to resolve this matter informally,
-l-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
SHORTENING TIME RE EXPERT W SS LIST14
through a letter sent to Plaintiff on October 24, 2012, via email, fax, and U.S. mail. Decl. of
Nenni, §6. Plaintiff, however, was not amenable to this effort, as stated in their response, sent via
fax on October 25. Defendant’s filed their motion to submit tardy expert witness list and/or
augment expert witness list, currently set to be heard on November 26, 2012. Decl. of Nenni,
{18. Counsel for Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ request here for an order shortening time
and advancing the hearing date. Decl. of McCuaig, 2.
ARGUMENT
This Court should grant Defendant’s application for an order shortening response times
and advancing the hearing date for its motion to submit tardy expert witness list and/or augment
expert witness list, pursuant to Cal.Civ.Code §1005(b) which allows the Court, or judge thereof,
to “prescribe a shorter time” as all parties have expressed a desire to hear this motion sooner than
currently scheduled, and such an order will help them organize their trial preparations.
“The Legislature has not granted such sweeping authority to the courts to shorten time.
However, the Legislature has included specific authorizations to shorten time, or to alter time
limits, in a number of individual sections which contain time limits [including § 1005]...
Eliceche v. Federal Land Bank Assn. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1362.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request the Court order that the
response times be shortened and that the hearing date be advanced to the earliest reasonable date
that works for the Court and counsel.
DATED: October vy » 2012 CJH & ASSOCIATES
aa
Attorney for Defendants,
RAYMOND ZHANG, et al.
2-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
SHORTENING TIME RE EXPERT WITNESS LIST| Chijeh Hu (SBN 241271)
Maureen McCuaig (SBN 279036)
Scott Nenni (SBN 280990)
CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1440 Broadway, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
| Telephone: (510) 832-1686
Fax: (510) 251-1155
Attorney for Defendants/Cross Complainants,
RAYMOND ZHANG, et al.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CATHAY BANK, a California banking Case No. CGC-10-500934
Corporation
DECLARATION OF MAUREEN MCCUAIG
Plaintiff, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
vs. SHORTENING RESPONSE TIMES AND
ADVANCING HEARING DATE
| RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, et al.,
DISCOVERY
Defendants.
Date: October 31, 2012
Time: 11:00 a.m.
Dept.: 302
I, Maureen McCuaig, declare:
1. Iam an attorney at law at CJH& ASSOCIATES, counsel for for Defendants Raymond Zhang,
| et al. in the above-entitled matter. I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of
California. I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and would competently testify
to them if called upon to do so.
2. On October 30, 2012, I notified Plaintiff's counsel Kenneth Russak and Hanna Raanan via
email and fax at 9:49am of our office’s intent to apply ex parte for leave to amend
1 Defendant’s answer by attaching a verification page. Plaintiff's counsel responded by saying
-l-
DECLARATION OF MAUREEN MCCUAIG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING
RESPONSE TIMES AND ADVANCING HEARING DATEwN NY NY NY NY NY NY KY SF SF BF Fe Ee ee SB
oda A A BF YN = SO we NIN DH FY NY = S&S
Com ND HW FF BW ND
they would not oppose our request. The email chain and fax cover and confirmation sheets
are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Executed this %( day of October 2012 at Oakland, California.
-2-
DECLARATION OF MAUREEN MCCUAIG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING
RESPONSE TIMES AND ADVANCING HEARING DATE,EXHIBIT A10/30/12
RE: Cathay Bank v. Raymond Zhang, et al.
RE: Cathay Bank v. Raymond Zhang, et al.
From: Thomas Robins
To: “Hanna B. Raanan" , "mmccuaig@cjhapc.com™
Ce: ‘Brian Hofer’ , "Kenneth N. Russak"
Priority: Normal
Date 10-30-2012 12:54 PM
All, please add me to the cc list on all communications. Thanks. As for the ex parte apps for orders
shortening time, Bank does not oppose those either. Please try to get everything set for same day. Tom
Robins
Thomas Robins
FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
6500 Wilshire Boulevard, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90048-4920
Direct: 323-658-9703
Facsimile: 323-651-2577
E-mail: trobins@frandzel.com
Web: www. frandzel.com
541 GO GREEN: Please consider the environment before you print
This electronic message contains information which may be confidential and privileged and is intended only for the named
addressee. Unless you are the addressee of this message you may not use, copy or disclose the contents of this message to
anyone. Ifyou have received this message in error, please delete the message and advise the sender by reply e-mail or by
calling (323) 852-1000. Thank you.
To ensure compliance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. Federal Tax advice contained in
this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed
herein,
From: Hanna B, Raanan
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:52 AM
To: 'mmccuaig@cjhapc.com'
Cc: ‘Brian Hofer’; Thomas Robins; Kenneth N. Russak
Subject: RE: Cathay Bank v. Raymond Zhang, et al.
Maureen,
I just saw this email. We will not oppose the ex parte application to amend answer by attaching a
verification page, provided the that is the only amendment being made ~ we will oppose any other
amendments to the answer. As to the other ex parte applications, we will oppose them. Please provide
your moving papers as soon as possible.
Regards,
1310/30/12
RE: Cathay Bank v. Raymond Zhang, et al.
Hanna B. Raanan
FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
6500 Wilshire Boulevard, 17th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90048-4920
Phone: (323) 852-1000
Facsimile: (323) 658-9645
E-mail: hraanan@frandzel.com
Web: www. frandzel.com
fey GO GREEN: Please consider the environment before you print.
This electronic message contains information which may be confidential and privileged and is intended only for the named
addressee. Unless you are the addressee of this message you may not use, copy or disclose the contents of this message to
anyone. If you have received this message in error, please delete the message and advise the sender by reply e-mail or by
calling (323) 852-1000. Thank you.
To ensure compliance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. Federal Tax advice contained in
this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed
herein.
From: Maureen McCuaig [mailto: mmccuaig@cjhapc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:20 AM
To: Hanna B, Raanan
Cc: ‘Brian Hofer’
Subject: FW: Cathay Bank v. Raymond Zhang, et al.
Hanna,
It appears you may not have received my original email below, though Ken should have received it.
Additionally, | sent the same notice to your office via fax.
Regards,
Maureen
From: Maureen McCuaig [mailto: mmccuaig@cjhapc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 9:49 AM
To: hranaan@frandzel.com; krussak@frandzel.com
Cc: hu@cjhapc.com; snenni@cjhapc.com; bhofer@cjhapc.com
Subject: Cathay Bank v. Raymond Zhang, et al.
Dear Hanna,
This email serves as notice that on October 31, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 302 of the San
Francisco Superior Court located at 400 McAllister St., San Francisco, we will be appearing ex parte
on our applications for leave to amend our answer by adding a verification page and for shortened
notice for our motion for leave to submit tardy expert witness information and to augment expert witness
list. Additionally, at the same time and location, we will be appearing ex parte on our application for a
2310/30/42
RE: Cathay Bank v. Raymond Zhang, et al.
shortened notice hearing on sanctions resulting from failure to comply with the court's order compelling
responses to form interrogatories, set one.
Please let me know whether you intend to oppose the ex parte applications.
Best regards,
Maureen
Maureen McCuaig, Esq.
CJH & Associates, PC
1440 Broadway, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 832-1686
Fax: (510) 251-1155
email: mmecuaig@cjhapc.com
+ + Content-Type: image/jpeg; name=image001 .j
immageOOL pe | gi2e:2.92 KB mince “ee
3/327
cui a associates, he.
1440 BROADWAY
SUITE 1000
OAKLAND, CA 94612
(510) 832.1686
Chijeh Hu (SBN 241271)
Maureen McCuaig (SBN 279036)
Scott Nenni (SBN 280990)
CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1440 Broadway, Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 832-1686
Fax: (510) 251-1155
Attorney for Defendants/Cross Complainants,
RAYMOND ZHANG, et al.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CATHAY BANK, a California banking CASE NO: CGC- 10 — 500934
Corporation, DECLARATION OF SCOTT NENNI IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING
Plaintiff, RESPONSE TIMES AND ADVANCING
HEARING DATE
v. DISCOVERY
RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, et al., | Date: October 31, 2012
Time: 11:00am
Dept.: 302
Defendants. Complaint filed: June 22, 2010
I, Scott Nenni, declare as follows:
1. lam an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all the courts in the State of
California. I practice with the firm CJH & Associates, counsel of record for Defendant Raymond
Zhang in the above-captioned case.
2. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called upon I could
testify competently as to the matters stated herein.
DECLARATION OF SCOTT NENNI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT
WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710];
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]oO Oem ND
27
OAKLAND, Ca 94812
ts10) e32- 1686
3. Plaintiff served its demand for expert witnesses via mail on September 19, 2012,
thereby making the date of exchange October 15, 2012. Plaintiff served their expert witness list
via mail on October 12, 2012.
4. After encountering much difficulty in locating an expert on Chinese culture
willing to testify as an expert witness, counsel for Defendants obtained a cultural expert on
October 18, 2012 and served notice with the required declaration on counsel for Plaintiff on the
same date.
5. Plaintiff then demanded on October 22, 2012 that Defendants withdraw their
expert witness list, and filed their motion to strike the expert witness list on October 23, 2012.
6. On October 24'" I sent a meet and confer letter to the Plaintiff's counsel via email,
fax, and U.S. mail.
7. The meet and confer letter identified in paragraph 3 attempted to seek informal
agreement from both parties to permit late submission of expert witnesses.
8. The Plaintiff responded on October 25, via fax.
9. The Plaintiff was unable to identify any instance of detrimental reliance, or
prejudice, resulting from the tardy submission of an expert witness list.
10. The Plaintiff was unwilling to agree a stipulation allowing augmentation of the
originally-submitted expert witness list.
11. Defendants originally-submitted expert witness list was submitted on October 18,
2012. The initial deadline for submitting expert witnesses was October 15, 2012.
12. The originally-submitted list described in paragraph 11 consisted of one expert
witness.
13. We now seek to add two additional expert witnesses, bringing the total number of
expert witnesses to three.
14. Defendants’ late submission was the result of unforeseen difficulty, constituting
both surprise and excusable neglect, in retaining an expert witness.
DECLARATION OF SCOTT NENNI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT
WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710];
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]27
cat a Associates, Be.
1440 BROADWAY
SUITE 1000
OAKLAND, CA 94612
(510) 832-1686
15. Defendants’ late submission, in part, resulted from the complete unwillingness of
Plaintiff to engage in the discovery process and put Defendants on notice of their expert witness
needs. This is evidenced by, as of this filing, four motions to compel brought against Plaintiff.
16. At the requests of counsel for Plaintiff, Defendant’s counsel in good faith has
rescheduled multiple depositions just this week, and also agreed to Plaintiff's request to conduct
non-expert depositions after the regular discovery cut-off.
17. Ample time remains to conduct expert witness discovery; moreover, expert
witness discovery has not yet commenced, for either party.
18. Defendants motion on this issue is currently set to be heard November 26, 2012.
I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 3l day of October 2012 at _/ Dese| , California.
By: a
SCOTT NENNI
DECLARATION OF SCOTT NENNI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT.
WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710];
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]
Preview
MU SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Oct-31-2012 11:27 am Case Number: CGC-10-500934 Filing Date: Oct-31-2012 11:26 Filed by: CAROL BALISTRERI Juke Box: 001 Image: 03823917 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER CATHAY BANK, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORPORATION VS. RAYMOND XIANG ZHANG et al 001003823917 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.Co me YN DW BF WN = N RON ND a a a ei BN RRR RB E SF CGae ABA RESBHR AS | Chijeh Hu (SBN 241271) F ( | Maureen McCuaig (SBN 279036) s T Scott Nenni (SBN 280990) “Peron Court of | CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Cunty of San Halvor 1440 Broadway, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 OCT 81 2012 2 Telephone: (510) 832-1686 RK OE Ty } Fax: (510) 251-1155 By. 4p PAE COurT uty Cher Attorney for Defendants/Cross Complainants, RAYMOND ZHANG, et al. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CATHAY BANK, a California banking Case No. CGC-10-500934 Corporation DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION Plaintiff, FOR ORDER ALLOWING SHORTENED RESPONSE TIMES AND ADVANCING vs. HEARING DATE RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, et al., DISCOVERY Defendants. Date: October 31, 2012 Time: 11:00 a.m. Dept.: 302 To all parties and their attorneys of record: Defendants RAYMOND ZHANG (“ZHANG”) et al applies for an order allowing shortened motion response times and advanced the hearing date for its motion to submit tardy expert witness list and/or augment expert witness list, currently set to be heard on November 26, 2012. This application is made under Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 (b)(c) on the grounds that: “The court, or a judge thereof, may prescribe a shorter time.” -l- DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING RESPONSE TIMES AND ADVANCING HEARING DATEw 1 12 | Plaintiff has not previously applied to any judicial officer for similar relief. This application is based on the complaint on file in this case, the attached declarations of Maureen McCuaig and Scott Nenni, a memorandum of points and authorities, all pleadings, documents, records, and files in this action, and such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing. DATED: October a\ , 2012 CJH & ASSOCIATES Mindi la Attorney for Defendants, RAYMOND ZHANG, et al. CERTIFICATION OF NOTIFICATION I am an attorney for Defendants in this action. In accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1203, at approximately 9:49am on October 30, 2012, I notified opposing counsel Kenneth Russak and Hanna Raanan by email and fax that I would be appearing ex parte on October 31, 2012 for an order shortening response times and advancing the hearing date of Defendants’ motion to submit tardy expert witness list and/or augment expert witness list. ] have attached the email, fax cover sheet and confirmation pages to my declaration as Exhibit A. Counsel for Plaintiff responded via email that they would not oppose Defendants request. Said email response is contained within the same email string attached as Exhibit A. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed in Oakland, California on October A\ , 2012 — nh aureen MeCuaig (4Z -2- DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING RESPONSE TIMES AND ADVANCING HEARING DATEoe YN DWH FF YW N 10 Chijeh Hu (SBN 241271) Maureen McCuaig (SBN 279036) Scott Nenni (280990) CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1440 Broadway, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 832-1686 Fax: (510) 251-1155 Attorney for Defendants/Cross Complainants, RAYMOND ZHANG, et al. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CATHAY BANK, a California banking Case No. CGC-10-500934 Corporation DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF Plaintiff, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE vs. APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING SHORTENED RESPONSE TIMES AND RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, et al., ADVANCING HEARING DATE Defendants. DISCOVERY Date: October 31, 2012 Time: 11:00 a.m. Dept.: 302 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff served its Demand for Exchange of Expert Witness Lists via mail on September 19, 2012, thereby making the date of the exchange October 15, 2012. Plaintiff served their expert witness list via mail on October 12,2012. Decl. of Nenni, 43. After difficulties in finding an expert willing to be involved in this litigation, counsel for Defendants obtained a cultural expert on October 18, 2012 and served notice with the required declaration on counsel for Plaintiff on the same date. Decl. of Nenni, §4. Plaintiff then demanded on October 22, 2012 that Defendants withdraw their expert witness list, and filed their motion to strike the expert witness list on October 23, 2012. Decl. of Nenni, 95. Defendants attempted to meet & confer with Plaintiff to resolve this matter informally, -l- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME RE EXPERT W SS LIST14 through a letter sent to Plaintiff on October 24, 2012, via email, fax, and U.S. mail. Decl. of Nenni, §6. Plaintiff, however, was not amenable to this effort, as stated in their response, sent via fax on October 25. Defendant’s filed their motion to submit tardy expert witness list and/or augment expert witness list, currently set to be heard on November 26, 2012. Decl. of Nenni, {18. Counsel for Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ request here for an order shortening time and advancing the hearing date. Decl. of McCuaig, 2. ARGUMENT This Court should grant Defendant’s application for an order shortening response times and advancing the hearing date for its motion to submit tardy expert witness list and/or augment expert witness list, pursuant to Cal.Civ.Code §1005(b) which allows the Court, or judge thereof, to “prescribe a shorter time” as all parties have expressed a desire to hear this motion sooner than currently scheduled, and such an order will help them organize their trial preparations. “The Legislature has not granted such sweeping authority to the courts to shorten time. However, the Legislature has included specific authorizations to shorten time, or to alter time limits, in a number of individual sections which contain time limits [including § 1005]... Eliceche v. Federal Land Bank Assn. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1349, 1362. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request the Court order that the response times be shortened and that the hearing date be advanced to the earliest reasonable date that works for the Court and counsel. DATED: October vy » 2012 CJH & ASSOCIATES aa Attorney for Defendants, RAYMOND ZHANG, et al. 2- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME RE EXPERT WITNESS LIST| Chijeh Hu (SBN 241271) Maureen McCuaig (SBN 279036) Scott Nenni (SBN 280990) CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1440 Broadway, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 | Telephone: (510) 832-1686 Fax: (510) 251-1155 Attorney for Defendants/Cross Complainants, RAYMOND ZHANG, et al. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA | FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CATHAY BANK, a California banking Case No. CGC-10-500934 Corporation DECLARATION OF MAUREEN MCCUAIG Plaintiff, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER vs. SHORTENING RESPONSE TIMES AND ADVANCING HEARING DATE | RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, et al., DISCOVERY Defendants. Date: October 31, 2012 Time: 11:00 a.m. Dept.: 302 I, Maureen McCuaig, declare: 1. Iam an attorney at law at CJH& ASSOCIATES, counsel for for Defendants Raymond Zhang, | et al. in the above-entitled matter. I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of California. I have personal knowledge of the following facts, and would competently testify to them if called upon to do so. 2. On October 30, 2012, I notified Plaintiff's counsel Kenneth Russak and Hanna Raanan via email and fax at 9:49am of our office’s intent to apply ex parte for leave to amend 1 Defendant’s answer by attaching a verification page. Plaintiff's counsel responded by saying -l- DECLARATION OF MAUREEN MCCUAIG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING RESPONSE TIMES AND ADVANCING HEARING DATEwN NY NY NY NY NY NY KY SF SF BF Fe Ee ee SB oda A A BF YN = SO we NIN DH FY NY = S&S Com ND HW FF BW ND they would not oppose our request. The email chain and fax cover and confirmation sheets are attached hereto as Exhibit A. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this %( day of October 2012 at Oakland, California. -2- DECLARATION OF MAUREEN MCCUAIG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING RESPONSE TIMES AND ADVANCING HEARING DATE,EXHIBIT A10/30/12 RE: Cathay Bank v. Raymond Zhang, et al. RE: Cathay Bank v. Raymond Zhang, et al. From: Thomas Robins To: “Hanna B. Raanan" , "mmccuaig@cjhapc.com™ Ce: ‘Brian Hofer’ , "Kenneth N. Russak" Priority: Normal Date 10-30-2012 12:54 PM All, please add me to the cc list on all communications. Thanks. As for the ex parte apps for orders shortening time, Bank does not oppose those either. Please try to get everything set for same day. Tom Robins Thomas Robins FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C. 6500 Wilshire Boulevard, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90048-4920 Direct: 323-658-9703 Facsimile: 323-651-2577 E-mail: trobins@frandzel.com Web: www. frandzel.com 541 GO GREEN: Please consider the environment before you print This electronic message contains information which may be confidential and privileged and is intended only for the named addressee. Unless you are the addressee of this message you may not use, copy or disclose the contents of this message to anyone. Ifyou have received this message in error, please delete the message and advise the sender by reply e-mail or by calling (323) 852-1000. Thank you. To ensure compliance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. Federal Tax advice contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein, From: Hanna B, Raanan Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:52 AM To: 'mmccuaig@cjhapc.com' Cc: ‘Brian Hofer’; Thomas Robins; Kenneth N. Russak Subject: RE: Cathay Bank v. Raymond Zhang, et al. Maureen, I just saw this email. We will not oppose the ex parte application to amend answer by attaching a verification page, provided the that is the only amendment being made ~ we will oppose any other amendments to the answer. As to the other ex parte applications, we will oppose them. Please provide your moving papers as soon as possible. Regards, 1310/30/12 RE: Cathay Bank v. Raymond Zhang, et al. Hanna B. Raanan FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C. 6500 Wilshire Boulevard, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90048-4920 Phone: (323) 852-1000 Facsimile: (323) 658-9645 E-mail: hraanan@frandzel.com Web: www. frandzel.com fey GO GREEN: Please consider the environment before you print. This electronic message contains information which may be confidential and privileged and is intended only for the named addressee. Unless you are the addressee of this message you may not use, copy or disclose the contents of this message to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please delete the message and advise the sender by reply e-mail or by calling (323) 852-1000. Thank you. To ensure compliance with Internal Revenue Service Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. Federal Tax advice contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein. From: Maureen McCuaig [mailto: mmccuaig@cjhapc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:20 AM To: Hanna B, Raanan Cc: ‘Brian Hofer’ Subject: FW: Cathay Bank v. Raymond Zhang, et al. Hanna, It appears you may not have received my original email below, though Ken should have received it. Additionally, | sent the same notice to your office via fax. Regards, Maureen From: Maureen McCuaig [mailto: mmccuaig@cjhapc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 9:49 AM To: hranaan@frandzel.com; krussak@frandzel.com Cc: hu@cjhapc.com; snenni@cjhapc.com; bhofer@cjhapc.com Subject: Cathay Bank v. Raymond Zhang, et al. Dear Hanna, This email serves as notice that on October 31, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 302 of the San Francisco Superior Court located at 400 McAllister St., San Francisco, we will be appearing ex parte on our applications for leave to amend our answer by adding a verification page and for shortened notice for our motion for leave to submit tardy expert witness information and to augment expert witness list. Additionally, at the same time and location, we will be appearing ex parte on our application for a 2310/30/42 RE: Cathay Bank v. Raymond Zhang, et al. shortened notice hearing on sanctions resulting from failure to comply with the court's order compelling responses to form interrogatories, set one. Please let me know whether you intend to oppose the ex parte applications. Best regards, Maureen Maureen McCuaig, Esq. CJH & Associates, PC 1440 Broadway, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 832-1686 Fax: (510) 251-1155 email: mmecuaig@cjhapc.com + + Content-Type: image/jpeg; name=image001 .j immageOOL pe | gi2e:2.92 KB mince “ee 3/327 cui a associates, he. 1440 BROADWAY SUITE 1000 OAKLAND, CA 94612 (510) 832.1686 Chijeh Hu (SBN 241271) Maureen McCuaig (SBN 279036) Scott Nenni (SBN 280990) CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1440 Broadway, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 832-1686 Fax: (510) 251-1155 Attorney for Defendants/Cross Complainants, RAYMOND ZHANG, et al. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CATHAY BANK, a California banking CASE NO: CGC- 10 — 500934 Corporation, DECLARATION OF SCOTT NENNI IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING Plaintiff, RESPONSE TIMES AND ADVANCING HEARING DATE v. DISCOVERY RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, et al., | Date: October 31, 2012 Time: 11:00am Dept.: 302 Defendants. Complaint filed: June 22, 2010 I, Scott Nenni, declare as follows: 1. lam an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all the courts in the State of California. I practice with the firm CJH & Associates, counsel of record for Defendant Raymond Zhang in the above-captioned case. 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called upon I could testify competently as to the matters stated herein. DECLARATION OF SCOTT NENNI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710]; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]oO Oem ND 27 OAKLAND, Ca 94812 ts10) e32- 1686 3. Plaintiff served its demand for expert witnesses via mail on September 19, 2012, thereby making the date of exchange October 15, 2012. Plaintiff served their expert witness list via mail on October 12, 2012. 4. After encountering much difficulty in locating an expert on Chinese culture willing to testify as an expert witness, counsel for Defendants obtained a cultural expert on October 18, 2012 and served notice with the required declaration on counsel for Plaintiff on the same date. 5. Plaintiff then demanded on October 22, 2012 that Defendants withdraw their expert witness list, and filed their motion to strike the expert witness list on October 23, 2012. 6. On October 24'" I sent a meet and confer letter to the Plaintiff's counsel via email, fax, and U.S. mail. 7. The meet and confer letter identified in paragraph 3 attempted to seek informal agreement from both parties to permit late submission of expert witnesses. 8. The Plaintiff responded on October 25, via fax. 9. The Plaintiff was unable to identify any instance of detrimental reliance, or prejudice, resulting from the tardy submission of an expert witness list. 10. The Plaintiff was unwilling to agree a stipulation allowing augmentation of the originally-submitted expert witness list. 11. Defendants originally-submitted expert witness list was submitted on October 18, 2012. The initial deadline for submitting expert witnesses was October 15, 2012. 12. The originally-submitted list described in paragraph 11 consisted of one expert witness. 13. We now seek to add two additional expert witnesses, bringing the total number of expert witnesses to three. 14. Defendants’ late submission was the result of unforeseen difficulty, constituting both surprise and excusable neglect, in retaining an expert witness. DECLARATION OF SCOTT NENNI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710]; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]27 cat a Associates, Be. 1440 BROADWAY SUITE 1000 OAKLAND, CA 94612 (510) 832-1686 15. Defendants’ late submission, in part, resulted from the complete unwillingness of Plaintiff to engage in the discovery process and put Defendants on notice of their expert witness needs. This is evidenced by, as of this filing, four motions to compel brought against Plaintiff. 16. At the requests of counsel for Plaintiff, Defendant’s counsel in good faith has rescheduled multiple depositions just this week, and also agreed to Plaintiff's request to conduct non-expert depositions after the regular discovery cut-off. 17. Ample time remains to conduct expert witness discovery; moreover, expert witness discovery has not yet commenced, for either party. 18. Defendants motion on this issue is currently set to be heard November 26, 2012. I declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 3l day of October 2012 at _/ Dese| , California. By: a SCOTT NENNI DECLARATION OF SCOTT NENNI IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT TARDY EXPERT. WITNESS INFORMATION [CCP §2034.710]; MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AUGMENT EXPERT WITNESS LIST, [CCP § 2034.610]