Preview
I Brett Ramsaur, Esq. (SBN 281566)
brett&a.ramsaurla w.corn
Ramsaur Law Office
3070 Bristol Street, Ste. 640
3
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
4 T: (949) 200-9114
Rongping Wu, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice)
5 1 woe,duwllo.corn
DGW KRAMER LLP
45 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10111
T: (917) 633-6860
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
9 GONGQINGCHENG PANHUI INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
PARTNERSHIP (LIMITED PARTNERSHIP)
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
13
GONGQINGCHENG PANHUI Case No.: 23-CIV-02886
14
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
PARTNERSHIP (LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
16 a Chinese company, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO
17 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT YIHUA ZHU'S MOTION
TO QUASH
18
vs.
19 Date: March 21, 2024
LIHUI BAI, YIHUA ZHU, XYZ Corp., Time: 2:00 p.m.
20 I — 3, and John Does 1 — 3, inclusive, Crtrm: Department 3
21 Defendants.
22
23 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
24 Plaintiff, Gongqingcheng Panhui Investment Management Partnership (Limited Partnership)
25 (" Plaintiff', by and through its undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this memorandum of
26 points and authorities in support of Plaintiff s Opposition to Defendant Yihua ZHU ("Defendant")'s
27 Motion to Quash Subpoena (the "Motion" ). In support thereof, Plaintiff respectfully states as
28 follows:
-1-
MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH
2 INTRODUCTION
3 Plaintiff complied with all applicable procedural rules when it issued the deposition
4 subpoena for the production ofbusiness records to JP IVlorgan Chase Bank N.A. (the "Subnoena").
5 The Subpoena seeks records which are highly relevant to the prosecution of this matter and must
6 not be quashed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
9 This is an action pursuant to the Uniform Voidable Transfers Act, inter alia, Division 4, Part
10 2, Title 2, Chapter I of the CCP tjti 3439 et seq. (the "CA UVTA"), to unwind and avoid transfers
11 of real properties which were conducted by and amongst defendant Lihui Bai ("Bai") and
12 Defendant, and any as-yet-discovered transferees, in furtherance of Bai and her husband, Jiman Zhu
13 ("Zhu,*'nd together with Bai, the "Judement Debtors")'s fraudulent scheme to defraud their
14 creditors, in order to enforce a Final Judgment issued in the People's Republic of China ("PRC")
15 against the Judgment Debtors (the "Comnlaint")) A parallel action is currently pending for the
16 recognition and enforcement of the Final Judgment pursuant to the Uniform Foreign Money
17 Judgments Recognition Act ("UFMRJA"). See Declaration of Rongping Wu ("Wu Decl."), $ 4.
18 To frustrate their creditors, including Plaintiff, Bai transferred her interest in real property
19 located at 71 Encino Rd, Atherton, CA 94027 (the "Pronertv") to her son, Defendant, for little to no
20 consideration. Id., $ 5, and Complaint f[$ 32 — 34 and Exhibit 4 thereto.
21 A. Service Efforts To-Date
22 On June 26, 2023, Counsel for Plaintiff prepared and dispatched the commencement
23 documents and a bespoke form POS-015 Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt for this matter to
24 Bai via USPS First Class mail to the Property. To-date, Counsel for Plaintiff has not received this
25 mailing back as undeliverable, return to sender, or the signed Form POS-015. Id., at $ 6.
26
'laintiff hereby respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the record in this matter.
That matter is styled Gongqingcheng Panhui Investment hfanagement Partnership (Limited
Partnership) v. Jiman ZHU, et ai, was filed on June 26, 2023, and assigned case no.: 23-CIV-02884
(the "Recognition Matter" ).
-2-
MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH
I On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff arranged for a process server ("Nationwide" ) to attempt to serve
2 Defendant, along with Bai, at Defendant's address in Californi, 358 Olympian Way, Pacifica, CA
3 94044 (the "Pacifica Address" ). On July 14, 2023 Nationwide was able to successfully serve
4 Defendant in hand at the Pacifica Address but were unable to locate Bai there. Id., at $ 7, and
5 Exhibit I thereto.
6 On August 29, 2023, Counsel for Plaintiff initiated service on Bai at her last known address
7 in the PRC located at Room ¹3, 8/F, Entrance (Gate) I, Building 7, 29 Taoyuan South Road, Lianhu
8 District, Xi'an City, Shaanxi Province, PRC, Postal Code: 710082 (the "PRC Address" ) via the 15
9 November 1965 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in
10 Civil or Commercial Matters 20 U.S.T. 361, 658 U.N.T.S. 163 (the "H~aue"). On November 15,
11 2023, the PRC Central Authority determined that Bai could not be located at the PRC Address and
12 represented that Bai*s "relatives refused to provide information about [Bai]." The matter was
13 subsequently closed by the PRC Central Authority. Id., at $ 8.
14 On October 30, 2023, Counsel for Plaintiff dispatched Nationwide to attempt to serve Bai at
15 the Property with the commencement documents for this matter, inter a1ia, because the June 26,
16 2023 mailing had not been returned as undeliverable, return to sender. On October 31, 2023,
17 Nationwide reported back that they had spoken with a resident at the Property who indicated Bai
18 did not currently reside there. Id., at $ 9, and Exhibit 2 thereto.
19 On January 3, 2024, Counsel for Plaintiff re-initiated service on Bai at a newly discovered
20 address in the PRC located at No.28 Building, Huiyuan, Yuhua Road, Area B, Airport Development
21 Zone, Shunyi District, Beijing, PRC, Postal Code: 101318 (the "New PRC Address" ). To-date, the
22 PRC Central Authority has accepted the commencement documents and passed them on to the
23 relevant Chinese court to perform service at the New PRC Address. Id., at $ 10.
24 B. The Subnoena
25 The Subpoena is intended to obtain information that will aid Plaintiff in serving Bai.
26 Moreover, the Subpoena is intended to obtain information that will aid Plaintiff in establishing the
27 extent of the Judgment Debtors'resence here in California for jurisdictional purposes. Finally, the
28 Subpoena is intended to aid Plaintiff in discovering additional transferees and the full extent of
-3-
MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH
I Judgment Debtors'ransfers of their assets. Plaintiffhas reason to believe that the Judgment
2 Debtors'ransfers of assets go well beyond the identified transfer of the Property and that belief was
3 memorialized by the inclusion of place-holder defendants XYZ Corps., I — 3 and John Does I — 3 in
4 the Complaint. The Subpoena was issued to JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (the "Custodian" )
5 because Plaintiff discovered that the Judgment Debtors and/or their known associates held accounts
6 with the Custodian. Id., at $ 11.
7 On December 28, 2023, per CCP ( 1985.3, Counsel for Plaintiff dispatched the required
8 form SUBP-025 along with a copy of the Subpoena and the accompanying attachment and affidavit
9 to each of the consumers affected by the Subpoena at their last known addresses (the "Notices" ).
10 The consumers affected by the Subpoena were both of the Judgment Debtors. Out of an abundance
11 of caution and to account for the distinct possibility that the Custodian would erroneously search for
12 records using variations of Zhu's first name, a notice was issued to known third-party Jian Zhu
13 ("Jian"). (Id., at $ 12). Defendant has represented in the Motion that Jian is in fact Zhu's brother.
14 (See Motion, pg. I). The Subpoena does not seek records pertaining to Jian, and Jian's name does
15 not appear anywhere in the Subpoena. See Wu Decl., $ 12, and Exhibit A to Colwell Declaration
16 accompanying the Motion.
17 Counsel for Plaintiff directed an employee to mail the Notices to the last known addresses
18 for the Judgment Debtors and Jian. As of December 28, 2023, the last known addresses for the
19 Judgment Debtors were an address in the PRC for Zhu and the address of the Property for Bai. The
20 address for Jian was obtained from public records in the PRC. The employee dispatched the
21 Notices to the last known addresses for Zhu and Jian in the PRC via USPS First Class International
22 mail and to Bai in California via USPS First Class mail. A copy of the Notice bespoke for Bai was
23 included in the mailing to Zhu at the PRC Address because they are husband and wife. To-date, the
24 Notices have not been returned as undeliverable, return to sender. Id., at $ 13. The records
25 available to Plaintiff indicate that the addresses for Zhu and Jian were correct. Id. and Exhibit 3
26 thereto.
27 Having received no objections pursuant to the Notices, on January 25, 2024, Plaintiff served
28 the Custodian in hand with the Subpoena and the Notices. Id., at tt 14, and Exhibit 4 thereto. After
-4-
MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH
I being notified that the Subpoena had been served on the Custodian, Counsel for Plaintiff directed an
2 employee to dispatch a courtesy email to Counsel for Defendant containing copies of the Subpoena
3 and the Notices. See Exhibit D to Colwell Declaration. The Notices as provided to Defendant's
4 Counsel contained the employee's signature, attesting under penalty of perjury that, pursuant to
5 CCP tj 1985.3, the Notices and a copy of the Subpoena, as provided for within Section I of page I
6 of the Notices ("[a] copy of the subpoena is attached"), had been mailed out in accordance with the
7 methodology detailed within Section 2(b) of page 2 of the Notices on December 28, 2023. See Wu
8 Decl., at $ 14, and Exhibits E — G to Colwell Declaration. The Subpoena does not seek Defendant's
9 records, contain Defendant's name, or otherwise implicate Defendant's consumer rights; a copy of
10 the Subpoena was only provided to Defendant concurrently with service on the Custodian pursuant
11 to CCP t]$ 2025.220(b) and 2025.240(a).
12 The list of objections submitted by Counsel for Defendant, with the exception of one
13 objection, is entirely duplicative of the objections to the procedurally defective subpoena issued to
14 the Custodian on November I, 2023. See id., at $ 15, and compare Exhibit 5 thereto with Exhibit D
15 to Colwell Declaration. Regarding the one new objection contained in the January 30 email,
16 Counsel for Plaintiff contacted the Custodian and unilaterally extended the due date by one week
17 from February 6 until February 13, thereby providing the Custodian with 19 days to comply. See
18 Wu DecL, at $ 16, and Exhibit 6 thereto. The Custodian never made mention of insufficient time to
19 comply and was surprised by Plaintiff s unilateral extension. Id.
20
21 ARGUMENT
22 A. Defendant does not have Standinu to Challenge Issuance of the Subnoena
23 CCP ) 1985.3(g) provides that "[a]ny consumer whose personal records are sought by a
24 subpoena duces tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which this subpoena duces tecum
25 is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or
26 modify the subpoena duces tecum." (emphasis added). The statute further provides that "[a]ny
27 other consumer or nonparty whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum may,
28 prior to the date of production, serve on the subpoenaing party, the witness, and the deposition
-5-
MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH
I officer, a written objection that cites the specific grounds on which production of the personal
2 records should be prohibited." Id.
3 A party seeking to resist discovery targeting third parties must have standing to do so.
4 Iv(atrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Doe, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 79, 82 (Cal. App. 2006).
5 Here, Defendant is not the consumer whose personal records are sought. Plaintiff has not
6 received any objection from the Consumers, nor are any of them the party filing this Motion.
7 Defendant does not have standing to assert the rights of the Consumers under the Code of Civil
8 Procedure, and as such the Motion must be denied.
9 B. The Subnoena Contains no Fatal Procedural Defects
10 1. Plaintiff Comolied with CCP 8 2020.410(c'I bv Grantina the Custodian Additional
Time to Resnond to the Subnoena
12 Plaintiff served the Subpoena on January 25, 2024. When Plaintiff was confronted with
13 Defendant's objection based on CCP ( 2020.410(c), Plaintiff immediately contacted the Custodian
14 and unilaterally extended the deadline to provide 19 days for the Custodian to comply with the
15 Subpoena from the date of its service. This is not a fatal defect. The Motion does not cite to any
16 applicable legal authority in support of the argument that this objection alone is a basis to quash the
* 30 (Orange
17 Subpoena. See Sahel v. Palladium Auto Leasing, 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 47753,
18 Cty. Sup. Ct., 2023) ("where the party issuing a Deposition Subpoena has voluntarily agreed to
19 extend the production date to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.410, subdivision
20 (c)...the court does not find that the Deposition Subpoena issued [...] is void for failing to comply
21 with Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.410, subdivision (c)").
22 2. Plaintiff Comnlied with CCP 8 1985.3 bv Servinu the Notices and Granting the
23 Consumers a Sufficient Period of Time to Obiect
24 The Subpoena was served on January 25, 2024, because Plaintiff complied with the Notice
25 to Consumer requirements of CCP ( 1985.3. The Notices were dispatched to the affected
26 consumers, Zhu, Bai, and Jian (together, the "Consumers" ), at their last known addresses on
27 December 28, 2023. CCP Ij 1985.3(b)(1) provides that service shall be made "[t]o the consumer
28 personally, or at his or her last known address." Service of the Notice for Bai was mailed to her last
-6-
MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH
known address in California at the Property and Plaintiff included a copy of the Notice bespoke to
Bai along with the Notice that was mailed to and bespoke for Zhu at his last known address in the
PRC, the PRC Address. This was done because Zhu and Bai are husband and wife and therefore
might share the PRC Address.
Defendant's averment that one of the addresses for either Jian or Zhu "must be incorrect" is
unsupported by any evidence. In making this assertion, Defendant ostensibly assumes that Chinese
urban planning and postal systems operate contrary to those of the United States. Absent any
concrete fact supporting this assertion, the only evidence the Court is left with is declaration
testimony submitted by Plaintiff which explains the methodology by which Plaintiff obtained the
10 addresses.
As a threshold matter, the Hague does not apply to the transmittal of the Notice to Bai as it
12 was sent to Bai's last known address in California. See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v.
13 Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 697 (1988) (holding that where service can be conducted in the United
14 States, the Hague does not apply).
15 Any argument that the Notices to Jiman and Jian (together, the "PRC Consumers" ) must be
16 provided in accordance with the methodologies of the Hague is contrary to the principles of the
17 Hague because the Notices do not implicate "formal service of process," to which service the Hague
18 applies. See Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou Sino Type Technology
19 Co., Ltd., 9 Cal. 5th 125, 137 (2020) (*'[t]he distinction between formal service and mere notice
20 appears consistent with the Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention,
21 published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law for
22 guidance regarding the Convention's application.") Here, although the Notices are statutory in
23 nature, they do not implicate formal service of process. "[F]ormal service of process involves two
24 aspects: service as a method of obtaining personal jurisdiction over a defendant and formalized
25 notification of court proceedings to allow a party to appear and defend against the action." Id., at
26 143. The PRC Consumers are non-parties. CCP $ 1985.3(g) provides with regards to non-party
27 consumers that the Notices are intended to allow "[a]ny other consumer or nonparty whose personal
28 records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum may, prior to the date of production, serve on the
-7-
MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH
I subpoenaing party, the witness, and the deposition officer, a written objection that cites the specific
2 grounds on which production of the personal records should be prohibited."
3 Unlike consumers who are parties to the underlying litigation, non-party consumers do not
4 have the right to file any motion to quash nor is the Notice intended to provide any form of
5 jurisdiction over the non-party. See CCP $ 1985.3(g) (" [a]ny consumer whose personal records are
6 sought by a subpoena duces tecum and who is a nartv to the civil action in wluch this subuoena
7 duces tecum is served mav, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to
8 quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum.") (emphasis added). Therefore, assertion of
9 jurisdiction is not required by "service" of the Notices. Accordingly, the term "service" within CCP
10 f 1985.3 does not refer to formal service of process. "It is true that section 1290.4, subdivision (a)
11 refers to 'service,'ut we do not agree the mere use of that word controls whether the statute is
12 referencing formal service ofprocess." Rockefeller Technologplnvestments (Asia) VII, 9 Cal. 5th,
13 at 144 (citing to In re Jennifer O., 184 Cal.App.4th 539 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) as an additional
14 example of this principle where litigant, a Mexican citizen, was mailed a notice of a court hearing
15 and that court hearing notice did not require formal service of process so as to implicate the Hague).
16 The purported defects that the Motion attempts to identify with the Notices and the
17 Subpoena do not exist. For that reason alone, the Motion should be denied.
18 C. The Information Souuht bv the Subnoena is Hiahlv Relevant
19 "For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party
in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Admissibility is
20 not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably
lead to admissible evidence. The phrase reasonably calculated to lead to the
21 discovery of admissible evidence makes it clear that the scope of discovery extends
22 to any information that reasonably might lead to other evidence that would be
admissible at trial. Thus, the scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic
23 and common sense. These rules are annlied liberallv in favor of discoverv."
Lipton v. Superior Court, 48 Cal. App. 4th 1599, 1611 — 1612 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (internal
24
citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis added); and see CCP $ 2017.010 (" Discovery may
relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.
27 Discovery may be obtained of the...existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location
28 of any...other property.").
-8-
MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH
I The Subpoena seeks information from the Custodian that will directly aid Plaintiff in efforts
2 at effectuating service of the commencement documents for this matter on Bai. The Subpoena
3 seeks information that will directly aid Plaintiff in combatting any jurisdictional defense levied by
4 Bai. The Subpoena seeks information from the Custodian that will aid Plaintiff in identifying any
5 additional actionable and voidable transfers that Bai has conducted and for which the Complaint
6 carved out and reserved with the inclusion of XYZ Corps., and John Does defendants. The
7 Subpoena seeks information that will directly aid Plaintiff in establishing Bai's insolvency related to
8 the claims brought under the CA UVTA. The Subpoena seeks information that will aid Plaintiff in
9 establishing the extent of its third claim within the Complaint. Plaintiff is a creditor, whose claim
10 against Bai is the Final Judgment, and the Subpoena also seeks information that will aid Plaintiff in
11 enforcing its claim against Bai and as yet unidentified transferees of Bai's personal property. The
12 Motion makes no claim of privacy interests and instead merely baldly asserts that the Subpoena
13 does not seek relevant information.
14 Crucially, the affidavit that was included with the Subpoena was not required to be included
15 by law. "A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for
16 copying need not be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration showing good cause for the
17 production of the business records designated in it." CCP II 2020.410(c); and see Terry v. SLICO,
18 175 Cak App. 4th 352, 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) ("a supporting affidavit unquestionably need not
19 be served with a deposition subpoena...under section 2020.410 requiring only the production of
20 business records..."). Therefore, the included affidavit is not the sine qua non that dictates the
21 purpose or scope of the Subpoena.
22 The information sought by the Subpoena is highly relevant and therefore the Motion should
23 be denied.
24 D. Anv Protective Order Should Onlv Pertain to Confidentialitv of Records
25 "The burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever
26 order is sought." Narivi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 316 (Cal. Ct.
27 App. 2014). Despite the Motion's arguments to the contrary, the information sought by the
28 Subpoena is highly relevant to the prosecution of this instant action, cannot be obtained from other
-9-
MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH
1 sources, and places absolute1y no burden on Yihua. Any burden related to the Subpoena
2 experienced by Yihua is entirely self-imposed as the information sought by the Subpoena is not
3 Yihua's financial information but that of his relatives.
4 A protective order in the form requested by the Motion would curb permissible avenues of
5 discovery. A confidentiality agreement would protect any privacy interests implicated by the
6 production of the financial records sought by the Subpoena. Counsel for Yihua made no effort to
7 comply with CCP ( 1985.3(g)'s requirement that "a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal
8 resolution of the dispute between the party requesting the personal records and the consumer or the
9 consumer's attorney," and instead has demanded that this Court quash the Subpoena or issue a
10 protective order that makes this Court the gate-keeper for the issuance of any subpoena. Rather
11 than attempt to meet and confer with Counsel for Plaintiff in good faith, Counsel for Yihua sent a
12 largely duplicative objection email that threatened motion practice and requests for sanctions if
13 Counsel for Plaintiff did not withdraw the Subpoena and change its litigation strategy. "In the
14 determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate, an evaluation of whether,
15 from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the discovering party, additional effort
16 appeared likely to bear fruit, should also be considered." Lugo v. FCA US LLC, 2023 Cal. Super.
17 LEXIS 70979, * 4 — 5 (Riverside Cty. Sup. Ct. 2023) (internal quotation omitted); and see CCP g
18 2016.040 ("[a] meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a
19 reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion").
20 Plaintiff respectfully posits that Yihua's Counsel did not comply with this requirement.
21 In light of the foregoing, the portion of the Motion that requests the imposition of a
22 protective order should be denied or in the alternative, this Court should enter a protective order that
23 specifically deals with the protection of confidentiality pertaining to any records produced by the
24 Subpoena.
25 IV.
26 CONCL USION
27 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion and
28 for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.
-10-
MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH
Dated: March 8, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
RAMSAUR LAW
By: /s/ Brett H. Ramsaur
Brett Ramsaur, Esq. (SBN 281566)
brettParamsaurlaw.corn
Ramsaur Law
3070 Bristol Street; Ste. 640
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
T: (949) 200-9114
Rougpiug Wu, Esq. (Pro IIac Vice)
lw'u (duwllo.corn
DGW KRAMER LLP
45 Rockefeller Plaza
20th Floor
10
New York, NY 10111
T:(917) 633-6860
Attorneys for Plaintiff
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- ll—
MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH
Gongqingcheng Panhui Investment Management v Bai, et aL
Case No. 23-CIV-02886
3 PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Pierce, State of Washington. I am over the age of
4 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is Ramsaur Law Office, 950
Pacific Avenue, Ste 1030, Tacoma, WA 98402.
6 On March 8, 2024, I caused to be served, in the manner indicated below, the
document described as
7
~ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's
Opposition to Defendant Yihua Zhu's Motion to Quash
9 ~ Declaration of Rongping Wu in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to
10 Defendant Yihua Zhu's Motion to Quash
11 on the interested parties in this action as follows:
ui 12 Counsel for Zihua Zhu
U
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP
Joseph A.ivieckes
0 13
Gabriel Colwell
14 555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor
15
Los Angeles, California 90071
2 6s
C/J
16 Ixj BY REGULAR MAIL: I caused such envelopes to be deposited in the United
States mail at Tacoma, WA, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily
17 familiar with the firm*s practice of collection and processing correspondence for
mailing. It is deposited with the United States Postal Service each day and that
18
practice was followed in the ordinary course of business for the service herein
19 attested to (C.C.P. ) 1013(a)).
20 BY FACSIMILE: (C.C.P. $ 1013(e)(fl).
BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: I caused such envelopes to be delivered by air
21
courier, with next day service, to the offices of the addressees. (C.C.P. $
22 1013(c)(d)).
23 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelopes to be delivered by hand
to the offices of the addressees. (C.C.P. $ 1011(a)(b)).
24
x BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I caused such document(s) to be delivered
25 electronically to the following email address(es): gabriel.colwell@squirepb.corn;
j oseph.meckes@squirepb.corn
26
27 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
the foregoing is true and correct.
PROOF OF SERVICE
Executed on March 8, 2024,
Alecia J. Rivas
10
U 12
13
0
c6 14
15
a5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
I Brett Ramsaur, Esq. (SBN 281566) brett&a.ramsaurla w.corn Ramsaur Law Office 3070 Bristol Street, Ste. 640 3 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 4 T: (949) 200-9114 Rongping Wu, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice) 5 1 woe,duwllo.corn DGW KRAMER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NY 10111 T: (917) 633-6860 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff: 9 GONGQINGCHENG PANHUI INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP (LIMITED PARTNERSHIP) 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 13 GONGQINGCHENG PANHUI Case No.: 23-CIV-02886 14 INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT PARTNERSHIP (LIMITED PARTNERSHIP), MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 16 a Chinese company, AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO 17 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT YIHUA ZHU'S MOTION TO QUASH 18 vs. 19 Date: March 21, 2024 LIHUI BAI, YIHUA ZHU, XYZ Corp., Time: 2:00 p.m. 20 I — 3, and John Does 1 — 3, inclusive, Crtrm: Department 3 21 Defendants. 22 23 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 24 Plaintiff, Gongqingcheng Panhui Investment Management Partnership (Limited Partnership) 25 (" Plaintiff', by and through its undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this memorandum of 26 points and authorities in support of Plaintiff s Opposition to Defendant Yihua ZHU ("Defendant")'s 27 Motion to Quash Subpoena (the "Motion" ). In support thereof, Plaintiff respectfully states as 28 follows: -1- MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH 2 INTRODUCTION 3 Plaintiff complied with all applicable procedural rules when it issued the deposition 4 subpoena for the production ofbusiness records to JP IVlorgan Chase Bank N.A. (the "Subnoena"). 5 The Subpoena seeks records which are highly relevant to the prosecution of this matter and must 6 not be quashed. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 9 This is an action pursuant to the Uniform Voidable Transfers Act, inter alia, Division 4, Part 10 2, Title 2, Chapter I of the CCP tjti 3439 et seq. (the "CA UVTA"), to unwind and avoid transfers 11 of real properties which were conducted by and amongst defendant Lihui Bai ("Bai") and 12 Defendant, and any as-yet-discovered transferees, in furtherance of Bai and her husband, Jiman Zhu 13 ("Zhu,*'nd together with Bai, the "Judement Debtors")'s fraudulent scheme to defraud their 14 creditors, in order to enforce a Final Judgment issued in the People's Republic of China ("PRC") 15 against the Judgment Debtors (the "Comnlaint")) A parallel action is currently pending for the 16 recognition and enforcement of the Final Judgment pursuant to the Uniform Foreign Money 17 Judgments Recognition Act ("UFMRJA"). See Declaration of Rongping Wu ("Wu Decl."), $ 4. 18 To frustrate their creditors, including Plaintiff, Bai transferred her interest in real property 19 located at 71 Encino Rd, Atherton, CA 94027 (the "Pronertv") to her son, Defendant, for little to no 20 consideration. Id., $ 5, and Complaint f[$ 32 — 34 and Exhibit 4 thereto. 21 A. Service Efforts To-Date 22 On June 26, 2023, Counsel for Plaintiff prepared and dispatched the commencement 23 documents and a bespoke form POS-015 Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt for this matter to 24 Bai via USPS First Class mail to the Property. To-date, Counsel for Plaintiff has not received this 25 mailing back as undeliverable, return to sender, or the signed Form POS-015. Id., at $ 6. 26 'laintiff hereby respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the record in this matter. That matter is styled Gongqingcheng Panhui Investment hfanagement Partnership (Limited Partnership) v. Jiman ZHU, et ai, was filed on June 26, 2023, and assigned case no.: 23-CIV-02884 (the "Recognition Matter" ). -2- MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH I On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff arranged for a process server ("Nationwide" ) to attempt to serve 2 Defendant, along with Bai, at Defendant's address in Californi, 358 Olympian Way, Pacifica, CA 3 94044 (the "Pacifica Address" ). On July 14, 2023 Nationwide was able to successfully serve 4 Defendant in hand at the Pacifica Address but were unable to locate Bai there. Id., at $ 7, and 5 Exhibit I thereto. 6 On August 29, 2023, Counsel for Plaintiff initiated service on Bai at her last known address 7 in the PRC located at Room ¹3, 8/F, Entrance (Gate) I, Building 7, 29 Taoyuan South Road, Lianhu 8 District, Xi'an City, Shaanxi Province, PRC, Postal Code: 710082 (the "PRC Address" ) via the 15 9 November 1965 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in 10 Civil or Commercial Matters 20 U.S.T. 361, 658 U.N.T.S. 163 (the "H~aue"). On November 15, 11 2023, the PRC Central Authority determined that Bai could not be located at the PRC Address and 12 represented that Bai*s "relatives refused to provide information about [Bai]." The matter was 13 subsequently closed by the PRC Central Authority. Id., at $ 8. 14 On October 30, 2023, Counsel for Plaintiff dispatched Nationwide to attempt to serve Bai at 15 the Property with the commencement documents for this matter, inter a1ia, because the June 26, 16 2023 mailing had not been returned as undeliverable, return to sender. On October 31, 2023, 17 Nationwide reported back that they had spoken with a resident at the Property who indicated Bai 18 did not currently reside there. Id., at $ 9, and Exhibit 2 thereto. 19 On January 3, 2024, Counsel for Plaintiff re-initiated service on Bai at a newly discovered 20 address in the PRC located at No.28 Building, Huiyuan, Yuhua Road, Area B, Airport Development 21 Zone, Shunyi District, Beijing, PRC, Postal Code: 101318 (the "New PRC Address" ). To-date, the 22 PRC Central Authority has accepted the commencement documents and passed them on to the 23 relevant Chinese court to perform service at the New PRC Address. Id., at $ 10. 24 B. The Subnoena 25 The Subpoena is intended to obtain information that will aid Plaintiff in serving Bai. 26 Moreover, the Subpoena is intended to obtain information that will aid Plaintiff in establishing the 27 extent of the Judgment Debtors'resence here in California for jurisdictional purposes. Finally, the 28 Subpoena is intended to aid Plaintiff in discovering additional transferees and the full extent of -3- MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH I Judgment Debtors'ransfers of their assets. Plaintiffhas reason to believe that the Judgment 2 Debtors'ransfers of assets go well beyond the identified transfer of the Property and that belief was 3 memorialized by the inclusion of place-holder defendants XYZ Corps., I — 3 and John Does I — 3 in 4 the Complaint. The Subpoena was issued to JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (the "Custodian" ) 5 because Plaintiff discovered that the Judgment Debtors and/or their known associates held accounts 6 with the Custodian. Id., at $ 11. 7 On December 28, 2023, per CCP ( 1985.3, Counsel for Plaintiff dispatched the required 8 form SUBP-025 along with a copy of the Subpoena and the accompanying attachment and affidavit 9 to each of the consumers affected by the Subpoena at their last known addresses (the "Notices" ). 10 The consumers affected by the Subpoena were both of the Judgment Debtors. Out of an abundance 11 of caution and to account for the distinct possibility that the Custodian would erroneously search for 12 records using variations of Zhu's first name, a notice was issued to known third-party Jian Zhu 13 ("Jian"). (Id., at $ 12). Defendant has represented in the Motion that Jian is in fact Zhu's brother. 14 (See Motion, pg. I). The Subpoena does not seek records pertaining to Jian, and Jian's name does 15 not appear anywhere in the Subpoena. See Wu Decl., $ 12, and Exhibit A to Colwell Declaration 16 accompanying the Motion. 17 Counsel for Plaintiff directed an employee to mail the Notices to the last known addresses 18 for the Judgment Debtors and Jian. As of December 28, 2023, the last known addresses for the 19 Judgment Debtors were an address in the PRC for Zhu and the address of the Property for Bai. The 20 address for Jian was obtained from public records in the PRC. The employee dispatched the 21 Notices to the last known addresses for Zhu and Jian in the PRC via USPS First Class International 22 mail and to Bai in California via USPS First Class mail. A copy of the Notice bespoke for Bai was 23 included in the mailing to Zhu at the PRC Address because they are husband and wife. To-date, the 24 Notices have not been returned as undeliverable, return to sender. Id., at $ 13. The records 25 available to Plaintiff indicate that the addresses for Zhu and Jian were correct. Id. and Exhibit 3 26 thereto. 27 Having received no objections pursuant to the Notices, on January 25, 2024, Plaintiff served 28 the Custodian in hand with the Subpoena and the Notices. Id., at tt 14, and Exhibit 4 thereto. After -4- MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH I being notified that the Subpoena had been served on the Custodian, Counsel for Plaintiff directed an 2 employee to dispatch a courtesy email to Counsel for Defendant containing copies of the Subpoena 3 and the Notices. See Exhibit D to Colwell Declaration. The Notices as provided to Defendant's 4 Counsel contained the employee's signature, attesting under penalty of perjury that, pursuant to 5 CCP tj 1985.3, the Notices and a copy of the Subpoena, as provided for within Section I of page I 6 of the Notices ("[a] copy of the subpoena is attached"), had been mailed out in accordance with the 7 methodology detailed within Section 2(b) of page 2 of the Notices on December 28, 2023. See Wu 8 Decl., at $ 14, and Exhibits E — G to Colwell Declaration. The Subpoena does not seek Defendant's 9 records, contain Defendant's name, or otherwise implicate Defendant's consumer rights; a copy of 10 the Subpoena was only provided to Defendant concurrently with service on the Custodian pursuant 11 to CCP t]$ 2025.220(b) and 2025.240(a). 12 The list of objections submitted by Counsel for Defendant, with the exception of one 13 objection, is entirely duplicative of the objections to the procedurally defective subpoena issued to 14 the Custodian on November I, 2023. See id., at $ 15, and compare Exhibit 5 thereto with Exhibit D 15 to Colwell Declaration. Regarding the one new objection contained in the January 30 email, 16 Counsel for Plaintiff contacted the Custodian and unilaterally extended the due date by one week 17 from February 6 until February 13, thereby providing the Custodian with 19 days to comply. See 18 Wu DecL, at $ 16, and Exhibit 6 thereto. The Custodian never made mention of insufficient time to 19 comply and was surprised by Plaintiff s unilateral extension. Id. 20 21 ARGUMENT 22 A. Defendant does not have Standinu to Challenge Issuance of the Subnoena 23 CCP ) 1985.3(g) provides that "[a]ny consumer whose personal records are sought by a 24 subpoena duces tecum and who is a party to the civil action in which this subpoena duces tecum 25 is served may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or 26 modify the subpoena duces tecum." (emphasis added). The statute further provides that "[a]ny 27 other consumer or nonparty whose personal records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum may, 28 prior to the date of production, serve on the subpoenaing party, the witness, and the deposition -5- MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH I officer, a written objection that cites the specific grounds on which production of the personal 2 records should be prohibited." Id. 3 A party seeking to resist discovery targeting third parties must have standing to do so. 4 Iv(atrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Doe, 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 79, 82 (Cal. App. 2006). 5 Here, Defendant is not the consumer whose personal records are sought. Plaintiff has not 6 received any objection from the Consumers, nor are any of them the party filing this Motion. 7 Defendant does not have standing to assert the rights of the Consumers under the Code of Civil 8 Procedure, and as such the Motion must be denied. 9 B. The Subnoena Contains no Fatal Procedural Defects 10 1. Plaintiff Comolied with CCP 8 2020.410(c'I bv Grantina the Custodian Additional Time to Resnond to the Subnoena 12 Plaintiff served the Subpoena on January 25, 2024. When Plaintiff was confronted with 13 Defendant's objection based on CCP ( 2020.410(c), Plaintiff immediately contacted the Custodian 14 and unilaterally extended the deadline to provide 19 days for the Custodian to comply with the 15 Subpoena from the date of its service. This is not a fatal defect. The Motion does not cite to any 16 applicable legal authority in support of the argument that this objection alone is a basis to quash the * 30 (Orange 17 Subpoena. See Sahel v. Palladium Auto Leasing, 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 47753, 18 Cty. Sup. Ct., 2023) ("where the party issuing a Deposition Subpoena has voluntarily agreed to 19 extend the production date to comply with Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.410, subdivision 20 (c)...the court does not find that the Deposition Subpoena issued [...] is void for failing to comply 21 with Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.410, subdivision (c)"). 22 2. Plaintiff Comnlied with CCP 8 1985.3 bv Servinu the Notices and Granting the 23 Consumers a Sufficient Period of Time to Obiect 24 The Subpoena was served on January 25, 2024, because Plaintiff complied with the Notice 25 to Consumer requirements of CCP ( 1985.3. The Notices were dispatched to the affected 26 consumers, Zhu, Bai, and Jian (together, the "Consumers" ), at their last known addresses on 27 December 28, 2023. CCP Ij 1985.3(b)(1) provides that service shall be made "[t]o the consumer 28 personally, or at his or her last known address." Service of the Notice for Bai was mailed to her last -6- MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH known address in California at the Property and Plaintiff included a copy of the Notice bespoke to Bai along with the Notice that was mailed to and bespoke for Zhu at his last known address in the PRC, the PRC Address. This was done because Zhu and Bai are husband and wife and therefore might share the PRC Address. Defendant's averment that one of the addresses for either Jian or Zhu "must be incorrect" is unsupported by any evidence. In making this assertion, Defendant ostensibly assumes that Chinese urban planning and postal systems operate contrary to those of the United States. Absent any concrete fact supporting this assertion, the only evidence the Court is left with is declaration testimony submitted by Plaintiff which explains the methodology by which Plaintiff obtained the 10 addresses. As a threshold matter, the Hague does not apply to the transmittal of the Notice to Bai as it 12 was sent to Bai's last known address in California. See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. 13 Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 697 (1988) (holding that where service can be conducted in the United 14 States, the Hague does not apply). 15 Any argument that the Notices to Jiman and Jian (together, the "PRC Consumers" ) must be 16 provided in accordance with the methodologies of the Hague is contrary to the principles of the 17 Hague because the Notices do not implicate "formal service of process," to which service the Hague 18 applies. See Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou Sino Type Technology 19 Co., Ltd., 9 Cal. 5th 125, 137 (2020) (*'[t]he distinction between formal service and mere notice 20 appears consistent with the Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention, 21 published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law for 22 guidance regarding the Convention's application.") Here, although the Notices are statutory in 23 nature, they do not implicate formal service of process. "[F]ormal service of process involves two 24 aspects: service as a method of obtaining personal jurisdiction over a defendant and formalized 25 notification of court proceedings to allow a party to appear and defend against the action." Id., at 26 143. The PRC Consumers are non-parties. CCP $ 1985.3(g) provides with regards to non-party 27 consumers that the Notices are intended to allow "[a]ny other consumer or nonparty whose personal 28 records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum may, prior to the date of production, serve on the -7- MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH I subpoenaing party, the witness, and the deposition officer, a written objection that cites the specific 2 grounds on which production of the personal records should be prohibited." 3 Unlike consumers who are parties to the underlying litigation, non-party consumers do not 4 have the right to file any motion to quash nor is the Notice intended to provide any form of 5 jurisdiction over the non-party. See CCP $ 1985.3(g) (" [a]ny consumer whose personal records are 6 sought by a subpoena duces tecum and who is a nartv to the civil action in wluch this subuoena 7 duces tecum is served mav, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to 8 quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum.") (emphasis added). Therefore, assertion of 9 jurisdiction is not required by "service" of the Notices. Accordingly, the term "service" within CCP 10 f 1985.3 does not refer to formal service of process. "It is true that section 1290.4, subdivision (a) 11 refers to 'service,'ut we do not agree the mere use of that word controls whether the statute is 12 referencing formal service ofprocess." Rockefeller Technologplnvestments (Asia) VII, 9 Cal. 5th, 13 at 144 (citing to In re Jennifer O., 184 Cal.App.4th 539 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) as an additional 14 example of this principle where litigant, a Mexican citizen, was mailed a notice of a court hearing 15 and that court hearing notice did not require formal service of process so as to implicate the Hague). 16 The purported defects that the Motion attempts to identify with the Notices and the 17 Subpoena do not exist. For that reason alone, the Motion should be denied. 18 C. The Information Souuht bv the Subnoena is Hiahlv Relevant 19 "For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement. Admissibility is 20 not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. The phrase reasonably calculated to lead to the 21 discovery of admissible evidence makes it clear that the scope of discovery extends 22 to any information that reasonably might lead to other evidence that would be admissible at trial. Thus, the scope of permissible discovery is one of reason, logic 23 and common sense. These rules are annlied liberallv in favor of discoverv." Lipton v. Superior Court, 48 Cal. App. 4th 1599, 1611 — 1612 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (internal 24 citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis added); and see CCP $ 2017.010 (" Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action. 27 Discovery may be obtained of the...existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location 28 of any...other property."). -8- MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH I The Subpoena seeks information from the Custodian that will directly aid Plaintiff in efforts 2 at effectuating service of the commencement documents for this matter on Bai. The Subpoena 3 seeks information that will directly aid Plaintiff in combatting any jurisdictional defense levied by 4 Bai. The Subpoena seeks information from the Custodian that will aid Plaintiff in identifying any 5 additional actionable and voidable transfers that Bai has conducted and for which the Complaint 6 carved out and reserved with the inclusion of XYZ Corps., and John Does defendants. The 7 Subpoena seeks information that will directly aid Plaintiff in establishing Bai's insolvency related to 8 the claims brought under the CA UVTA. The Subpoena seeks information that will aid Plaintiff in 9 establishing the extent of its third claim within the Complaint. Plaintiff is a creditor, whose claim 10 against Bai is the Final Judgment, and the Subpoena also seeks information that will aid Plaintiff in 11 enforcing its claim against Bai and as yet unidentified transferees of Bai's personal property. The 12 Motion makes no claim of privacy interests and instead merely baldly asserts that the Subpoena 13 does not seek relevant information. 14 Crucially, the affidavit that was included with the Subpoena was not required to be included 15 by law. "A deposition subpoena that commands only the production of business records for 16 copying need not be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration showing good cause for the 17 production of the business records designated in it." CCP II 2020.410(c); and see Terry v. SLICO, 18 175 Cak App. 4th 352, 359 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) ("a supporting affidavit unquestionably need not 19 be served with a deposition subpoena...under section 2020.410 requiring only the production of 20 business records..."). Therefore, the included affidavit is not the sine qua non that dictates the 21 purpose or scope of the Subpoena. 22 The information sought by the Subpoena is highly relevant and therefore the Motion should 23 be denied. 24 D. Anv Protective Order Should Onlv Pertain to Confidentialitv of Records 25 "The burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever 26 order is sought." Narivi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal.App.4th 261, 316 (Cal. Ct. 27 App. 2014). Despite the Motion's arguments to the contrary, the information sought by the 28 Subpoena is highly relevant to the prosecution of this instant action, cannot be obtained from other -9- MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH 1 sources, and places absolute1y no burden on Yihua. Any burden related to the Subpoena 2 experienced by Yihua is entirely self-imposed as the information sought by the Subpoena is not 3 Yihua's financial information but that of his relatives. 4 A protective order in the form requested by the Motion would curb permissible avenues of 5 discovery. A confidentiality agreement would protect any privacy interests implicated by the 6 production of the financial records sought by the Subpoena. Counsel for Yihua made no effort to 7 comply with CCP ( 1985.3(g)'s requirement that "a reasonable and good faith attempt at informal 8 resolution of the dispute between the party requesting the personal records and the consumer or the 9 consumer's attorney," and instead has demanded that this Court quash the Subpoena or issue a 10 protective order that makes this Court the gate-keeper for the issuance of any subpoena. Rather 11 than attempt to meet and confer with Counsel for Plaintiff in good faith, Counsel for Yihua sent a 12 largely duplicative objection email that threatened motion practice and requests for sanctions if 13 Counsel for Plaintiff did not withdraw the Subpoena and change its litigation strategy. "In the 14 determination of whether an attempt at informal resolution is adequate, an evaluation of whether, 15 from the perspective of a reasonable person in the position of the discovering party, additional effort 16 appeared likely to bear fruit, should also be considered." Lugo v. FCA US LLC, 2023 Cal. Super. 17 LEXIS 70979, * 4 — 5 (Riverside Cty. Sup. Ct. 2023) (internal quotation omitted); and see CCP g 18 2016.040 ("[a] meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall state facts showing a 19 reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion"). 20 Plaintiff respectfully posits that Yihua's Counsel did not comply with this requirement. 21 In light of the foregoing, the portion of the Motion that requests the imposition of a 22 protective order should be denied or in the alternative, this Court should enter a protective order that 23 specifically deals with the protection of confidentiality pertaining to any records produced by the 24 Subpoena. 25 IV. 26 CONCL USION 27 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion and 28 for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances. -10- MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH Dated: March 8, 2024 Respectfully submitted, RAMSAUR LAW By: /s/ Brett H. Ramsaur Brett Ramsaur, Esq. (SBN 281566) brettParamsaurlaw.corn Ramsaur Law 3070 Bristol Street; Ste. 640 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 T: (949) 200-9114 Rougpiug Wu, Esq. (Pro IIac Vice) lw'u (duwllo.corn DGW KRAMER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza 20th Floor 10 New York, NY 10111 T:(917) 633-6860 Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - ll— MPA ISO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH Gongqingcheng Panhui Investment Management v Bai, et aL Case No. 23-CIV-02886 3 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Pierce, State of Washington. I am over the age of 4 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is Ramsaur Law Office, 950 Pacific Avenue, Ste 1030, Tacoma, WA 98402. 6 On March 8, 2024, I caused to be served, in the manner indicated below, the document described as 7 ~ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Yihua Zhu's Motion to Quash 9 ~ Declaration of Rongping Wu in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to 10 Defendant Yihua Zhu's Motion to Quash 11 on the interested parties in this action as follows: ui 12 Counsel for Zihua Zhu U SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP Joseph A.ivieckes 0 13 Gabriel Colwell 14 555 South Flower Street, 31st Floor 15 Los Angeles, California 90071 2 6s C/J 16 Ixj BY REGULAR MAIL: I caused such envelopes to be deposited in the United States mail at Tacoma, WA, with postage thereon fully prepaid. I am readily 17 familiar with the firm*s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the United States Postal Service each day and that 18 practice was followed in the ordinary course of business for the service herein 19 attested to (C.C.P. ) 1013(a)). 20 BY FACSIMILE: (C.C.P. $ 1013(e)(fl). BY OVERNIGHT MAIL: I caused such envelopes to be delivered by air 21 courier, with next day service, to the offices of the addressees. (C.C.P. $ 22 1013(c)(d)). 23 BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelopes to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressees. (C.C.P. $ 1011(a)(b)). 24 x BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: I caused such document(s) to be delivered 25 electronically to the following email address(es): gabriel.colwell@squirepb.corn; j oseph.meckes@squirepb.corn 26 27 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. PROOF OF SERVICE Executed on March 8, 2024, Alecia J. Rivas 10 U 12 13 0 c6 14 15 a5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE