Preview
Derek C. Tung (SEN 224‘2‘69)
LAW OFFICE OF TUNG & COMPANY, INC“
LLIVT, JD, CPA, CFP
8 CorporateiPark, Suite 190
Irvine, CA 92606—5 105*
Tel: 949-752-5888 SUPERIOR EOEJE'TESRAI IFORNIA
Fax; 949-209-5833 COUNTY 0F SAN gmwA’HDINo
derek@tunglawcpa.c0m
CIVIL “WEN
Jij g; J 1‘
Attorney for Cross—Defendants,
JUN WANG; HUAQ IN LENG ’
u
,
Byiwmgggé’géL
S ephanie Reed, Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA
COUNTY 0F SAN AB ERNARDINO
Jun Wang, a California Individual, and ) Case No.: CIVSBZ301861
ll Huaqin Lang, a California Individual ) A8
Plaintiffs, )
12
)
CROSS—DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
XV!
V. )
MOTION AND OPPOSITION TO CROSS-
13
)
COMPLAINANTS’ NOTICE OF
Z-Zh
1 eng
.
Jxa,
. . .
a Cahforma Indmdual, and
. .
MOTION AND OPPOSITION TO
14
Fan Yang, a California Individual CROSSCOMPLAINTS, MOTION n V
Defendants.
g
STRIKE UNVERIFIED ANSWER AND
)
ENTER DEFAULT; MEMORANDUM 0F
)
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
Zizheng Jias a California Individual, and ) DECLARATION OF DEREK TUNG
Fan Yang, a California Individual )
Cross-Complainants, )
)
V' ) Hearing: 08/02/2023
, . , ,
) Time: 8:30am
Jun Wang, a Cahforma Indwldual, and
Dept: S30
Huaqin Lang, a California Individual Judge: Brian S Mccarvme
20 Cross—Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 02, 2023 at 8:30 a.m., in, Department S30 01‘ this
27 court located at 247 West 3rd SL, San Bernardino, CA 92415. Cross—Defendants Jun Wang and
1
CROSS—DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION T0 CROSS~COMPLAINTS MOTION T0 STRIKE AND ENTER DEFAUL f
V \a
Huaqin Leng’s, (“Cross-Defendants”) will move this Court for an Order striking Cross-
Complainants Jia Zizheng rand Fan Yang’s (“Cross—Complainants”) Motion T0 Strike
Cross-Defendams’ Unverified Answer and Enter Default in entirety.
Cross-Complainants’ Motion should be denied by court as their claim that the Cross-
Defendants failed to address each aspect of the verified Cross—Complaint adequately falls short
on merit. It should be recognized that the Cross-Defendants have provided a comprehensiv (D
response, addressing the substantial ekments of the Cross—Complaint. Cross—Defendants’
responses have- suitably addressed the crux of the claims. Moreover, the Cross—Defendants have
demonstrated their dedication to rectifying any perceived deficiencies, as evidenced by them
proactive efforts in seeking an extension or stipulation before the deadline and their subseq uent
filing 0f a verified answer.
Furthermore, even assuming for the sake 0f argument that the initial answer was defec tive,
it is worth mentioning that such defects in answers are correctable. This is well—established in
California case law that Courts permit the defendant t0 file an amended verified answer,
i4 recognizing that the lack of verification constituted a "defect in pleading” that could be rec ified
15 through amendment. Hayes v. Metrocities Mortgage, LLC, N0. B214229 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 6,
,16 2010) As such, Cross-Dcfendants’ timely submission of a verified answer should be seen in this
17 fight.
Therefore, the Cross-Defendants vehememly dispute the assertion that their initial answer
18
was so defective that it should be considered equivalent to having provided no answer at am.
l9
Despite its imperfections, Cross—Defendantsuphold that their initial response contained the
requisite components of a proper defense as mandated under California law. This was certainly
not a case of a non-responsive or absent defendant. Consequently, the proposal to render a
defaultjudgment, an extreme solution generally reserved for instances where the defendam
abstains from participating in the legal process, is decidedly inappropriate.
This motion Will be based on this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points
25
and Authorities, Declaration of Derek Tung, the papers and records on file herein, and on such
26
oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the Motion.
27
28
,2
CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION T0 CROSS—COMPLAINTS’ MOTION T0 STRIKE AND ENTER DEFAULT
Preview
Derek C. Tung (SEN 224‘2‘69) LAW OFFICE OF TUNG & COMPANY, INC“ LLIVT, JD, CPA, CFP 8 CorporateiPark, Suite 190 Irvine, CA 92606—5 105* Tel: 949-752-5888 SUPERIOR EOEJE'TESRAI IFORNIA Fax; 949-209-5833 COUNTY 0F SAN gmwA’HDINo derek@tunglawcpa.c0m CIVIL “WEN Jij g; J 1‘ Attorney for Cross—Defendants, JUN WANG; HUAQ IN LENG ’ u , Byiwmgggé’géL S ephanie Reed, Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SAN AB ERNARDINO Jun Wang, a California Individual, and ) Case No.: CIVSBZ301861 ll Huaqin Lang, a California Individual ) A8 Plaintiffs, ) 12 ) CROSS—DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF XV! V. ) MOTION AND OPPOSITION TO CROSS- 13 ) COMPLAINANTS’ NOTICE OF Z-Zh 1 eng . Jxa, . . . a Cahforma Indmdual, and . . MOTION AND OPPOSITION TO 14 Fan Yang, a California Individual CROSSCOMPLAINTS, MOTION n V Defendants. g STRIKE UNVERIFIED ANSWER AND ) ENTER DEFAULT; MEMORANDUM 0F ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; Zizheng Jias a California Individual, and ) DECLARATION OF DEREK TUNG Fan Yang, a California Individual ) Cross-Complainants, ) ) V' ) Hearing: 08/02/2023 , . , , ) Time: 8:30am Jun Wang, a Cahforma Indwldual, and Dept: S30 Huaqin Lang, a California Individual Judge: Brian S Mccarvme 20 Cross—Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: 26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 02, 2023 at 8:30 a.m., in, Department S30 01‘ this 27 court located at 247 West 3rd SL, San Bernardino, CA 92415. Cross—Defendants Jun Wang and 1 CROSS—DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION T0 CROSS~COMPLAINTS MOTION T0 STRIKE AND ENTER DEFAUL f V \a Huaqin Leng’s, (“Cross-Defendants”) will move this Court for an Order striking Cross- Complainants Jia Zizheng rand Fan Yang’s (“Cross—Complainants”) Motion T0 Strike Cross-Defendams’ Unverified Answer and Enter Default in entirety. Cross-Complainants’ Motion should be denied by court as their claim that the Cross- Defendants failed to address each aspect of the verified Cross—Complaint adequately falls short on merit. It should be recognized that the Cross-Defendants have provided a comprehensiv (D response, addressing the substantial ekments of the Cross—Complaint. Cross—Defendants’ responses have- suitably addressed the crux of the claims. Moreover, the Cross—Defendants have demonstrated their dedication to rectifying any perceived deficiencies, as evidenced by them proactive efforts in seeking an extension or stipulation before the deadline and their subseq uent filing 0f a verified answer. Furthermore, even assuming for the sake 0f argument that the initial answer was defec tive, it is worth mentioning that such defects in answers are correctable. This is well—established in California case law that Courts permit the defendant t0 file an amended verified answer, i4 recognizing that the lack of verification constituted a "defect in pleading” that could be rec ified 15 through amendment. Hayes v. Metrocities Mortgage, LLC, N0. B214229 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 6, ,16 2010) As such, Cross-Dcfendants’ timely submission of a verified answer should be seen in this 17 fight. Therefore, the Cross-Defendants vehememly dispute the assertion that their initial answer 18 was so defective that it should be considered equivalent to having provided no answer at am. l9 Despite its imperfections, Cross—Defendantsuphold that their initial response contained the requisite components of a proper defense as mandated under California law. This was certainly not a case of a non-responsive or absent defendant. Consequently, the proposal to render a defaultjudgment, an extreme solution generally reserved for instances where the defendam abstains from participating in the legal process, is decidedly inappropriate. This motion Will be based on this Notice of Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points 25 and Authorities, Declaration of Derek Tung, the papers and records on file herein, and on such 26 oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the Motion. 27 28 ,2 CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION T0 CROSS—COMPLAINTS’ MOTION T0 STRIKE AND ENTER DEFAULT