Preview
CIV-130
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Slate Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
Frank J, Perretta, SBN#126947
|Messner Reeves, LLP
160 W. Santa Clara Street, #1000
San Jose, CA 95113
TELEPHONE NO: (4(08)298-7120 FAX NO. (Optional’4 ()8)298-0477
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): fyerretta@messner.com
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Defs Patrick Lin and Rosa Wang
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Santa Clara
STREET ADDRESS: 191 North First Street
MAILING ADDRESS: 191 North First Street
CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Jose, CA 95113
BRANCH NAME:
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Sherry Hsieh and Yeao-Nan Hsieh
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Patrick Lin, Rosa Lin, Jemmy Lin, et al.
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT CASE NUMBER:
OR ORDER 2015-1-CV287361 (cons.)
(Check one): UNLIMITED CASE [J uimitep case
(Amount demanded (Amount demanded was
exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less)
TO ALL PARTIES :
41, Ajudgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): February 3, 2020
2. Acopy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice.
Date: 2/4/20
Frank J. Perretta
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF ¥_] ATTORNEY PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY)
> frblO (SIGNATURE)
yo
J
/
Page 1 of 2
Form Approved for Optional Use wwrw.courinfo.ca.gov
Judicial Council of California NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
ClV-130 [New January 1, 2010}
Filed
February 3, 2020
FRANK J, PERRETTA, ESQ, SBN 126947 Clerk of the Court
| fip@millermorton.com
M. JONATHAN ROBB, JR., ESQ., SBN 290457 Superior Court of CA
mjr@millermorton.com County of Santa Clara
MILLER, MORTON, CAILLAT & NEVIS, LLP 2015-1-CV-287361
50 West San Fernando Street, Suite 1300 By: rburciaga
San Jose, California 95113
Telephone: (408) 292-1765
Facsimile: (408) 436-8272 Signed: 27872020 10:21 AN
Attorneys for Defendants Koucage
Patrick Lin and Rosa Wang (erroneously responded as
Rosa Lin)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10
11 SHERRY HSIEH AND YEAO-NAN HSIEH, | Case No.; 2015-1-CV-287361
(Consolidated with Case No. 16CV303134)
12 Plaintiffs,
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
13 vs,
14 PATRICK LIN, ROSA LIN, JEMMY LIN, Trial Date: October-22720T8
and MAY LIN; and DOES 1 through 10, None presently set
15
Defendants,
16
ee
17
18
19
20 Pursuant to the order dated September 4, 2018 in Case No. 2015-1-CV-287361, a true
21 and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A”, it is hereby
22 ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that in the case, entitled Sherry Hsieh, et al. v.
338
oe
23 Patrick Lin, et al. in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 2015-1-CV-287361,
20 ot
eeeZa
Ba 24 Defendants Patrick Lin and Rosa Lin are entitled to judgment as to all causes of action. Defendants
288
5g
Zese
25 Patrick Lin and Rosa Lin are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs shall take nothing as to
65s2
Pees
kesa
ORCS 26 Defendants Patrick Lin and Rosa Lin, ! light of this judgment, the only case remaining is the**
25
27 DATED; January 31, 2020
ge
28
28 Judge of the Superior Court
**subordinate case, case no. 16CV303194. All further activities shall take place under that
case number, and all further pleadings shall be filed in16CV303194.
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Exhibit A
(peoprep
SEP 05:2018
Clerk of the Court «,
‘Superior Court of GA County of Santa Clara
By...
Julie-Nashed—-DEPUTY
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
10
11
12 SHERRY HSIEH, ET AL., Case No. 2015-1-CV-287361
Plaintiffs,
13 ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS PATRICK.
vs. LIN AND ROSA WANG’S MOTION
14
FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION;
15 PATRICK LIN’S MOTION TO
PATRICK LIN, ET AL., COMPEL DEPOSITION
16 Defendants, ATTENDANCE OF SHERRY HSIEH
AND MIN CHOU
7
18
er
ne pnt
19
20 The motion for summary adjudication by defendants Patrick Lin and Rosa Wang
21 (collectively, “moving defendants”), and the motion to compel the deposition attendance of
22 Sherry Hsieh and Min Chou by Patrick Lin came on for hearing before the Honorable Mary E.
23 Arand on September 4, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 9. The matter having been submitted,
24 after full consideration of the evidence, the separate statements, and authorities submitted by each
25 party, and arguments made by the parties in their papers and the hearing, the court makes the
26 following rulings:
27 According to the allegations of the first amended complaint (“FAC”), on February 5,
28 2003, plaintiffs Sherry Hsieh (“Sherry”) and Yeao-Nan Hsieh (““Yeao-Nan”) (collectively,
1
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE.
“Plaintiffs”) loaned defendant Patrick Lin (“Patrick”) $56,000, which Patrick orally promised to
pay with compound interest at the rate of 10%, (See FAC, 94.) On February 5, 2005, Patrick
breached the agreement, and began residing in Taiwan with his wife Rosa Lin (“Rosa”), (See
FAG, ff 5-6, 8.)
Tn August 2004, Patrick and Rosa also entered into a lease agreement with Plaintiffs for a
monthly rent of $2,200 plus 6% interest compounded on any unpaid rent. (See FAC, J 10.) On
October 20, 2004, Patrick and Rosa permanently left the state of California and returned to
Taiwan
On December 1, 2004, defendant Jemmy Lin (“Jemmy”)—Patrick and Rosa’s son—
10 agreed to take over his parents’ lease, (See FAC, J 12.) Jemmy made no rent payments from
11 September 1, 2004 through November 30, 2004, and now owe $6,600 in unpaid rent plus
12 compounded interest. (See FAC, 13.) Jemmy also made only partial payments of rent from
13 December 1, 2004 to March 2015, such that $159,200 in unpaid rent, plus compounded interest
14 is now ow
15 On July 1, 2013, defendant May Lin (“May”) agreed to take over Jemmy’s lease;
16 however, from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015, May made no rent payments, such that $64,000 in
17 unpaid rent plus compounded interest is now owing. (See FAC, $f] 15-16.)
18 Plaintiffs allege that they never released Patrick and Rosa from their obligation to pay
19 rent, and thus they are liable as guarantors. (See FAC, 919.)
20 Plaintiffs allege that Patrick and Rosa’s absence from the state of California tolls the
2l statute of limitations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 351. (See FAC, 7, 18, 27,
22 35.)
23 On May 26, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the FAC against defendants Patrick, Rosa, Jemmy and
24 May (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for:
25 1) Breach of oral contract;
2) Breach of oral contract;
26 3) Fraud;
27 4) Fraud;
5) Common counts; and,
28 6) Common counts,
2
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIO
N ATTENDANCE
Defendants Patrick and Rosa move for summary adjudication of each cause of action of
the FAC, Defendant Patrick also moves to compel the depositions of Sherry and Min Chou.
DEFENDANTS PATRICK AND ROSA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
OF EACH CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant’s burden on summary adjudication
“A defendant seeking summary judgment must show that at least one element of the
plaintiff’s.cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause
10 of action. ... The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show there is a triable issue of material
11 fact on that issue.” (AlexR. Thomas & Co. v, Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co. (2002) 98
12 Cal.App.4"" 66, 72; internal citations omitted; emphasis added.)
13 “The ‘tried and true’ way for defendants to meet their burden of proof on summary
14 judgment motions is to present affirmative evidence (declarations, etc.) negating, as a matter of
15 law, an essential element of plaintiff's claim.” (Weil et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure
16 Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2007) § 10:241, p.10-91, citing Guz v. Bechtel National Inc.
17 (2000) 24 Cal.4" 317, 334; emphasis original.) “The moving party’s declarations and evidence
18 will be strictly construed in determining whether they negate (disprove) an essential element of
19 plaintiffs claim ‘in order to avoid unjustly depriving the plaintiff of a trial.”” (Id. at § 10:241.20,
20 p.10-91, citing Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107.)
21 “Another way for a defendant to obtain summary judgment is to ‘show’ that an essential
22 element of plaintiff's claim cannot be established. Defendant does so by presenting evidence
23 that plaintiff ‘does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence’ (because plaintiff|
24 must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to oppose the motion.) Such evidence usually consists
25 of admissions by plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he or she has
26 discovered nothing to support an essential element of the cause of action.” (/d. at § 10:242, p.10-|
27 92, citing Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4 826, 854-855.)
28
3
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE,
Defendants’ request for judicial notice
Moving defendants’ request for judicial notice of the complaints, and Patrick and Rosa’s
answer is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).)
Third and fourth causes of action
Moving defendants present evidence that Rosa did not make any statements or
misrepresentations as alleged by the third and fourth causes of action. (See evidence cited by
PI.’s separate statement in opposition to motion for summary adjudication, nos, (“UMFs”) 7-20.)
Defendants also present evidence that no statements were made to Sherry. (See evidence cited
10 by UMFs 27-38.) Defendants also present evidence that a novation of the lease agreement
11 occurred thereby releasing Rosa and Patrick from their obligation under the lease, and thus, they
12 would not be liable for fraud based on the lease agreement. (See evidence cited by UMFs 80-
13 84.) (See Wells Fargo Bank v. Bank of America (1995) 32 Cal.App.4" 424, 431-432 (stating that!
14 “{nJovation is the substitution of a new obligation for an existing one.., [t]he substitution is by
15 agreement and with the intent to extinguish the prior obligation”).) Moving defendants meet
16 their initial burden as to the third and fourth causes of action.
17 In opposition, Plaintiffs do not make any arguments with regards to the third and fourth
18 causes of action, Moreover, Plaintiffs’ evidence submitted solely address the issue with regards
19 to the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of
20 material fact as to the third and fourth causes of action, Defendants Patrick and Rosa’s motion
21 for summary adjudication. of the third and fourth causes of action is GRANTED.
22
23 First, second, fifth and sixth causes of action as to defendant Rosa and plaintiff Sherry
24 Moving defendants present evidence that Rosa was not a party to the loan or the lease
25 agreement. (See evidence cited by UMFs 1-6, 90-97.) Moving defendants also present evidence
26 that Sherry was also not a party to the loan or the lease agreement. (See evidence cited by UMFs
27 21-26, 98-105.) Moving defendants meet their initial burden to demonstrate that the first,
28
4
ORDER RE; MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE
second, fifth and sixth causes of action lack merit as to defendant Rosa, and as asserted by
plaintiff Sherry.
In opposition, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material
fact. Instead, as previously stated, Plaintiffs’ evidence submitted address the issue with regards
to the statute of limitations. Defendant Rosa’s motion for summary adjudication of the first,
second, fifth and sixth causes of action is GRANTED as to her. Defendant Patrick and Rosa’s
motion for summary adjudication of the first, second, fifth and sixth causes of action is
GRANTED as to plaintiff Sherry.
10 Second and sixth causes of action
i As with the fourth cause of action, moving defendants present evidence that a novation off
12 the lease agreement occurred thereby releasing Rosa and Patrick from their obligation under the
13 lease, and thus, they would not be liable for fraud based on the lease agreement. (See evidence
14 cited by UMFs 75-84, 106-110.) (See Wells Fargo Bank v. Bank of America (1995) 32
15 Cal.App.4" 424, 431-432 (stating that “[nJovation is the substitution of a new obligation for an
16 existing one... [t]he substitution is by agreement and with the intent-to extinguish the prior
17 obligation”).) Moving defendants meet their initial burden as to the second and sixth causes of
18 action,
19 In opposition, Plaintiffs do not make any argument with regards to any novation.
20 Moreover, Plaintiffs’ evidence submitted solely address the issue with regards to the statute of
21 limitations. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to the
22 second and sixth causes of action. Defendants Patrick and Rosa’s motion for summary
23 adjudication of the second and sixth causes of action is GRANTED,
24
25 Statute of limitations
26 The last issue with regards to the motion for summary adjudication is whether Plaintiffs’
27 claims are barred by the statute of limitations. In light of the above rulings, the remaining causes
28 of action are the first cause of action for breach of oral agreement, and the fifth cause of action
5
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE
for common counts. Both such causes of action must be brought “[w]ithin two years.” (Code
Civ. Proc. § 339 (pertaining to “‘an action upon a contract, obligation or liability not founded
upon an instrument of writing”).) Moving defendants present evidence that the breach occurred
on July 31, 2003. (See evidence cited by UMFs 39-43.) The complaint was not filed until
October 28, 2015—more than 12 years later. (See UMF 44.) Moving defendants present
evidence demonstrating that Patrick and Rosa have been in the State of California for more than
two years since July 31, 2003. (See evidence cited by UMFs 45-46, 67-74.) Moving defendants
meet their initial burden to demonstrate that the first and fifth causes of action are barred by the
two-year statute of limitations of section 339,
10 In opposition, Plaintiffs’ separate statement does not cite to any evidence demonstrating
1 the existence of a triable issue of material fact; instead, the separate statement merely states
12 “disputed. It is his [or her] statement.” Moreover, the evidence that Plaintiffs have submitted is
13 not admissible evidence that demonstrates the existence of a triable issue of material fact.
14 Instead, Plaintiffs present their own declaration stating that: the Defendants’ passports are
15 counterfeit; Defendants had knowledge of the consequences if they presented genuine passports;
16 Sherry has her own timeline of Patrick and Rosa’s time in California “based on Sherry Hsieh’s
lV: best knowledge; there is no rent issue of statute of limitations; and, there is no loan issue of.
18 statute of limitations. (See Pls.’ decl. in opposition to motion for summary adjudication, {ff 1-5.)
19 Plaintiffs also present a copies of Patrick and Rosa’s passports with notes indicating as to how
20 Plaintiffs conclude that the passports are counterfeit, However, moving defendants object to this
21 evidence, and the objections have merit. Defendants Patrick and Rosa’s objections numbers 1-
22 11 are SUSTAINED. The Court did not rely on objections numbers 12-13 in making this Order.
23 In light of the above ruling on the objections, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a triable issue of
24 material fact as to the issue regarding the statute of limitations. Moving defendants’ motion for
25 summary adjudication of the first and fifth causes of action is GRANTED.
26 ‘it
27 ‘If
28
6
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE
MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF SHERRY HSIEH AND MIN CHOU
Patrick contends that he served initial notices of deposition on December 4, 2017, setting
Min Chou’s deposition for March 7, 2018 and Sherry’s deposition for March 14, 2018, but after
meeting and conferring multiple times with both Sherry and Min Chou, they rescheduled the
depositions for July 10, 2018 for Min Chou and July 11, 2018 for Sherry. After a translator
retained for the deposition fell ill, Patrick’s counsel contacted Sherry to notify her of the situation]
and sought to reschedule them. According to Patrick’s counsel, he and Sherry agreed to
reschedule the depositions for the week of July 23, 2018. Patrick’s counsel sent Sherry a
confirmation email memorializing the agreement. On July 10, 2018, Patrick served amended
10 notices of deposition as to both Sherry and Min Chou, scheduled for July 26 and 27. However,
11 after receiving the amended deposition notices, Sherry contacted Patrick’s counsel to let him
12 know that neither she nor Min Chou would appear for deposition on the noticed and agreed upon
13 dates, Patrick moves to compel the deposition of Sherry and Min Chou.
14 Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 states that “[i]f, after service of a deposition
15 notice, a party to the action... without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410,
16 fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it... the party giving the notice may move for
17 an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony...” (Code Civ. Proc, § 2025.450,
18 subd. (a).) “The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section
19 2016.040....” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.040, subd. (b)(2).)
20 Here, Patrick contends that he has properly met and conferred with both Min Chou and
21 Sherry; however, the evidence in support of this contention suggests that he has, in fact, only
22 conferred with Sherry. In fact, Patrick’s supporting memorandum confirms that he has only
23 conferred with Sherry, but attempts to excuse this detail, noting that “the Court has allowed Ms.
24 Hsieh to translate for Ms. Chou so that this matter does not become a quagmire of confusion and
25 misunderstanding.” (Patrick’s memorandum of points arid authorities in support of motion to
26 compel depo attendance, p,2:21-23.) Sherry does not represent Min Chou, and, accordingly,
27 cannot make agreements on her behalf, or otherwise speak or confer on her behalf. Patrick fails
28
q
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE
to demonstrate that the motion as to Min Chou is proper. Patrick’s motion to compel the
deposition attendance of Min Chou is DENIED.
As to Sherry, she makes a litany of arguments in opposition—it is against the law to
shorten the time to hear and file a motion to compel deposition attendance; Patrick’s counsel
cancelled the deposition earlier and Sherry cannot afford to take more vacation time; Patrick’s
counsel does not need to conduct a deposition when all he has to do is read the emails; and,
Patrick refused to have his deposition taken, so Sherry can do that too—however, Sherry does
not cite to any legal authority to support these assertions. In fact, Sherry’s arguments lack merit.
Patrick demonstrates good cause for the deposition attendance of Sherry and it appears that
10 Sherry and Patrick have adequately met and conferred, but that Sherry just refuses to comply
11 with the deposition subpoena. Patrick’s motion to compel the deposition attendance of Sherry is}
12 GRANTED. Sherry Hsieh is ORDERED to for deposition in accordance with the deposition
13 notice, at the office of Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, LLP on Monday, September 10, 2018 at
14 10:00 a.m.
15 In association with the motion to compel deposition attendance, Patrick additionally
16 makes a request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,000.00 against Sherry and Min Chou.
17 However, the request is not code-compliant and Patrick has not substantially prevailed against
18 both Sherry and Min Chou. Patrick’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.
19
20
21 September 4, 2018
Mary E. Arand
22
23 Mary E. Arand
Judge of the Superior Court
24
25
26
27
28
8
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE
ao
a
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
wits COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
im DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE
191 NORTH First STREET
oer td. SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113
CIVIL DIVISION
Frank Joseph Perretta
Miller Morton Caillat & Nevis
50 W San Fernando
Suite 1300
San Jose CA 95113
rte p
SEP 05 2018
RE: S. Hsieh, et al vs P. Lin, et al Clerk of the Court
‘Superior Court of CA County of Santa Clara
Case Number: 2015-1-CV-287361 BY. Julie-Neshed—CEPUTY
PROOF OF SERVICE
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS PATRICK LIN AND ROSA WANG'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION;
PATRICK LIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE OF SHERRY HSIEH AND MIN CHOU
was delivered to the parties listed below the above entitled case as set forth in the sworn declaration below.
If you, a party represented by you, or a witness to be called on behalf of that party need an accommodation under the American with
Disabilities Act, please contact the Court Administrator's office at (408) 882-2700, or use the Court's TDD line (408) 882-2690 or the
Voice/TOD California Relay Service (800) 735-2922.
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL: | declare that | served this notice by enclosing a true copy in a sealed envelope, addressed to
each person whose name is shown below, and by depositing the envelope with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at San Jose,
CA on September 05, 2018. CLERK OF THE COURT, by Julie Nashed, Deputy.
ce: Sherry Hsieh 52 Dunbarton Ct San Ramon CA 94583
Yeao-Nan Hsieh 52 Dunbarton Ct San Ramon CA 94583
CW-9027 REV 12/08/16 PROOF OF SERVICE
PROOF OF SERVICE
Sherry Hsieh and Yeao-Nan Hsieh v. Patrick Lin, Rosa Lin, et al.
Santa Clara Superior Co\irt Case No. 2015-1-CV-287361
(Consolidated with Case No. 16CV303134)
STATE OF CALI IRNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
I, the undersigned, declare: I am now at all times herein mentioned have been over
the age of eighteen ydars, a resident of the Unite States, employed in Santa Clara County,
California, and not a to the within action or\cause; my business address is 50 West San
Fernando Street, Suite\1300, San Jose, California 95113. On the date set forth below, I served
the below-stated persor\(s) the attached
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
BY MAIL on the lowing party(ies) in said \ction, in accordance with CCP §1013a, by
placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed\envelope addressed as shown below. I
caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon filly prepaid to be placed in the United States
10 mail at San Jose, Cal\fornia. I am readily familidr with the firm's practice of collection and
processing correspondence for mailing. It is depdsited with the U.S. Postal Service on the
ti same day in the ordin: course of business. I aware that on motion of party served,
service is presumed in\alid if postal cancellation ite or postage meter date is more than one
12 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit
13 (STATE) | declare und penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and coi
14
Min Chou
15 Sherry Hsieh 10618 La Roda Drive
52 Dunbarton Court Cupertino, CA 95014
16 San Ramon, CA 94583-2568
shinchyi comast.net
17
Yeao-Nan Hsieh
18 52 Dunbarton Court
San Ramon, CA 94583-2568
19
20 Executed on September 7, 2018,\at San Jose, California.
21
Se 22
dg
G2 Julia C. Tien
Se
as 23 1294491
Za of
sgfa 24
S288
25
zeby
OS25
ekes
ee Ge
ORs
go
26
39 27
38
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
CIV-130
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Sherry Hsieh and Yeao-Nan Hsieh CASE NUMBER:
2015-1-CV287361 cons w/16CV303134
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Patrick Lin, Rosa Lin, Jemmy Lin, et al.
PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
(NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order if you are a party in the action. The person who served
the notice must complete this proof of service.)
1 | am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took
place, and my residence or business address is (specify): Business
160 W. Santa Clara Street, #1000, San Jose, Ca 95113
| served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with postage
fully prepaid and (check one):
a. [__] deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service.
Placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices,
with which | am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is
deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service.
The Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order was mailed:
a on (date): 2/4/20
b. from (city and state): San Jose, CA 95113
The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows:
a. Name of person served: c. Name of person served:
See Attached Proof of Service
Street address: Street address:
City City:
State and zip code: State and zip code:
Name of person served: Name of person served:
Street address: Street address:
City: City:
State and zip code: State and zip code:
Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).)
5. Number
of pages attached |
| declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that th ‘Oregoing isfrue and cosréct.
Date: 2/4/20
April M. Kitagawa
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DE; RANT)
Page 2 of 2
CIV-130 [New January 1, 2010) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER
SERVICE LIST
Hsieh y. Lin
Case No. 115CV287361 consolidated with 16CV303134
Sherry Hsieh In Pro Per
52 Dunbarton Court
San Ramon, CA 94583
‘Yeao-Nan Hsieh In Pro Per
52 Dunbarton Court
San Ramon, CA 94583
Min Chou In Pro Per
10619 La Roda
Cupertino, CA 95014
Preview
CIV-130 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Slate Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Frank J, Perretta, SBN#126947 |Messner Reeves, LLP 160 W. Santa Clara Street, #1000 San Jose, CA 95113 TELEPHONE NO: (4(08)298-7120 FAX NO. (Optional’4 ()8)298-0477 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): fyerretta@messner.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Defs Patrick Lin and Rosa Wang SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Santa Clara STREET ADDRESS: 191 North First Street MAILING ADDRESS: 191 North First Street CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Jose, CA 95113 BRANCH NAME: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Sherry Hsieh and Yeao-Nan Hsieh DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Patrick Lin, Rosa Lin, Jemmy Lin, et al. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT CASE NUMBER: OR ORDER 2015-1-CV287361 (cons.) (Check one): UNLIMITED CASE [J uimitep case (Amount demanded (Amount demanded was exceeded $25,000) $25,000 or less) TO ALL PARTIES : 41, Ajudgment, decree, or order was entered in this action on (date): February 3, 2020 2. Acopy of the judgment, decree, or order is attached to this notice. Date: 2/4/20 Frank J. Perretta (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF ¥_] ATTORNEY PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY) > frblO (SIGNATURE) yo J / Page 1 of 2 Form Approved for Optional Use wwrw.courinfo.ca.gov Judicial Council of California NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER ClV-130 [New January 1, 2010} Filed February 3, 2020 FRANK J, PERRETTA, ESQ, SBN 126947 Clerk of the Court | fip@millermorton.com M. JONATHAN ROBB, JR., ESQ., SBN 290457 Superior Court of CA mjr@millermorton.com County of Santa Clara MILLER, MORTON, CAILLAT & NEVIS, LLP 2015-1-CV-287361 50 West San Fernando Street, Suite 1300 By: rburciaga San Jose, California 95113 Telephone: (408) 292-1765 Facsimile: (408) 436-8272 Signed: 27872020 10:21 AN Attorneys for Defendants Koucage Patrick Lin and Rosa Wang (erroneously responded as Rosa Lin) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 11 SHERRY HSIEH AND YEAO-NAN HSIEH, | Case No.; 2015-1-CV-287361 (Consolidated with Case No. 16CV303134) 12 Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT 13 vs, 14 PATRICK LIN, ROSA LIN, JEMMY LIN, Trial Date: October-22720T8 and MAY LIN; and DOES 1 through 10, None presently set 15 Defendants, 16 ee 17 18 19 20 Pursuant to the order dated September 4, 2018 in Case No. 2015-1-CV-287361, a true 21 and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A”, it is hereby 22 ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that in the case, entitled Sherry Hsieh, et al. v. 338 oe 23 Patrick Lin, et al. in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 2015-1-CV-287361, 20 ot eeeZa Ba 24 Defendants Patrick Lin and Rosa Lin are entitled to judgment as to all causes of action. Defendants 288 5g Zese 25 Patrick Lin and Rosa Lin are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs shall take nothing as to 65s2 Pees kesa ORCS 26 Defendants Patrick Lin and Rosa Lin, ! light of this judgment, the only case remaining is the** 25 27 DATED; January 31, 2020 ge 28 28 Judge of the Superior Court **subordinate case, case no. 16CV303194. All further activities shall take place under that case number, and all further pleadings shall be filed in16CV303194. [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT Exhibit A (peoprep SEP 05:2018 Clerk of the Court «, ‘Superior Court of GA County of Santa Clara By... Julie-Nashed—-DEPUTY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 11 12 SHERRY HSIEH, ET AL., Case No. 2015-1-CV-287361 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS PATRICK. vs. LIN AND ROSA WANG’S MOTION 14 FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; 15 PATRICK LIN’S MOTION TO PATRICK LIN, ET AL., COMPEL DEPOSITION 16 Defendants, ATTENDANCE OF SHERRY HSIEH AND MIN CHOU 7 18 er ne pnt 19 20 The motion for summary adjudication by defendants Patrick Lin and Rosa Wang 21 (collectively, “moving defendants”), and the motion to compel the deposition attendance of 22 Sherry Hsieh and Min Chou by Patrick Lin came on for hearing before the Honorable Mary E. 23 Arand on September 4, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 9. The matter having been submitted, 24 after full consideration of the evidence, the separate statements, and authorities submitted by each 25 party, and arguments made by the parties in their papers and the hearing, the court makes the 26 following rulings: 27 According to the allegations of the first amended complaint (“FAC”), on February 5, 28 2003, plaintiffs Sherry Hsieh (“Sherry”) and Yeao-Nan Hsieh (““Yeao-Nan”) (collectively, 1 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE. “Plaintiffs”) loaned defendant Patrick Lin (“Patrick”) $56,000, which Patrick orally promised to pay with compound interest at the rate of 10%, (See FAC, 94.) On February 5, 2005, Patrick breached the agreement, and began residing in Taiwan with his wife Rosa Lin (“Rosa”), (See FAG, ff 5-6, 8.) Tn August 2004, Patrick and Rosa also entered into a lease agreement with Plaintiffs for a monthly rent of $2,200 plus 6% interest compounded on any unpaid rent. (See FAC, J 10.) On October 20, 2004, Patrick and Rosa permanently left the state of California and returned to Taiwan On December 1, 2004, defendant Jemmy Lin (“Jemmy”)—Patrick and Rosa’s son— 10 agreed to take over his parents’ lease, (See FAC, J 12.) Jemmy made no rent payments from 11 September 1, 2004 through November 30, 2004, and now owe $6,600 in unpaid rent plus 12 compounded interest. (See FAC, 13.) Jemmy also made only partial payments of rent from 13 December 1, 2004 to March 2015, such that $159,200 in unpaid rent, plus compounded interest 14 is now ow 15 On July 1, 2013, defendant May Lin (“May”) agreed to take over Jemmy’s lease; 16 however, from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015, May made no rent payments, such that $64,000 in 17 unpaid rent plus compounded interest is now owing. (See FAC, $f] 15-16.) 18 Plaintiffs allege that they never released Patrick and Rosa from their obligation to pay 19 rent, and thus they are liable as guarantors. (See FAC, 919.) 20 Plaintiffs allege that Patrick and Rosa’s absence from the state of California tolls the 2l statute of limitations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 351. (See FAC, 7, 18, 27, 22 35.) 23 On May 26, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the FAC against defendants Patrick, Rosa, Jemmy and 24 May (collectively, “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for: 25 1) Breach of oral contract; 2) Breach of oral contract; 26 3) Fraud; 27 4) Fraud; 5) Common counts; and, 28 6) Common counts, 2 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIO N ATTENDANCE Defendants Patrick and Rosa move for summary adjudication of each cause of action of the FAC, Defendant Patrick also moves to compel the depositions of Sherry and Min Chou. DEFENDANTS PATRICK AND ROSA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF EACH CAUSE OF ACTION Defendant’s burden on summary adjudication “A defendant seeking summary judgment must show that at least one element of the plaintiff’s.cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause 10 of action. ... The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to show there is a triable issue of material 11 fact on that issue.” (AlexR. Thomas & Co. v, Mutual Service Casualty Ins. Co. (2002) 98 12 Cal.App.4"" 66, 72; internal citations omitted; emphasis added.) 13 “The ‘tried and true’ way for defendants to meet their burden of proof on summary 14 judgment motions is to present affirmative evidence (declarations, etc.) negating, as a matter of 15 law, an essential element of plaintiff's claim.” (Weil et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure 16 Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2007) § 10:241, p.10-91, citing Guz v. Bechtel National Inc. 17 (2000) 24 Cal.4" 317, 334; emphasis original.) “The moving party’s declarations and evidence 18 will be strictly construed in determining whether they negate (disprove) an essential element of 19 plaintiffs claim ‘in order to avoid unjustly depriving the plaintiff of a trial.”” (Id. at § 10:241.20, 20 p.10-91, citing Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107.) 21 “Another way for a defendant to obtain summary judgment is to ‘show’ that an essential 22 element of plaintiff's claim cannot be established. Defendant does so by presenting evidence 23 that plaintiff ‘does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence’ (because plaintiff| 24 must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to oppose the motion.) Such evidence usually consists 25 of admissions by plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he or she has 26 discovered nothing to support an essential element of the cause of action.” (/d. at § 10:242, p.10-| 27 92, citing Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4 826, 854-855.) 28 3 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE, Defendants’ request for judicial notice Moving defendants’ request for judicial notice of the complaints, and Patrick and Rosa’s answer is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).) Third and fourth causes of action Moving defendants present evidence that Rosa did not make any statements or misrepresentations as alleged by the third and fourth causes of action. (See evidence cited by PI.’s separate statement in opposition to motion for summary adjudication, nos, (“UMFs”) 7-20.) Defendants also present evidence that no statements were made to Sherry. (See evidence cited 10 by UMFs 27-38.) Defendants also present evidence that a novation of the lease agreement 11 occurred thereby releasing Rosa and Patrick from their obligation under the lease, and thus, they 12 would not be liable for fraud based on the lease agreement. (See evidence cited by UMFs 80- 13 84.) (See Wells Fargo Bank v. Bank of America (1995) 32 Cal.App.4" 424, 431-432 (stating that! 14 “{nJovation is the substitution of a new obligation for an existing one.., [t]he substitution is by 15 agreement and with the intent to extinguish the prior obligation”).) Moving defendants meet 16 their initial burden as to the third and fourth causes of action. 17 In opposition, Plaintiffs do not make any arguments with regards to the third and fourth 18 causes of action, Moreover, Plaintiffs’ evidence submitted solely address the issue with regards 19 to the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of 20 material fact as to the third and fourth causes of action, Defendants Patrick and Rosa’s motion 21 for summary adjudication. of the third and fourth causes of action is GRANTED. 22 23 First, second, fifth and sixth causes of action as to defendant Rosa and plaintiff Sherry 24 Moving defendants present evidence that Rosa was not a party to the loan or the lease 25 agreement. (See evidence cited by UMFs 1-6, 90-97.) Moving defendants also present evidence 26 that Sherry was also not a party to the loan or the lease agreement. (See evidence cited by UMFs 27 21-26, 98-105.) Moving defendants meet their initial burden to demonstrate that the first, 28 4 ORDER RE; MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE second, fifth and sixth causes of action lack merit as to defendant Rosa, and as asserted by plaintiff Sherry. In opposition, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact. Instead, as previously stated, Plaintiffs’ evidence submitted address the issue with regards to the statute of limitations. Defendant Rosa’s motion for summary adjudication of the first, second, fifth and sixth causes of action is GRANTED as to her. Defendant Patrick and Rosa’s motion for summary adjudication of the first, second, fifth and sixth causes of action is GRANTED as to plaintiff Sherry. 10 Second and sixth causes of action i As with the fourth cause of action, moving defendants present evidence that a novation off 12 the lease agreement occurred thereby releasing Rosa and Patrick from their obligation under the 13 lease, and thus, they would not be liable for fraud based on the lease agreement. (See evidence 14 cited by UMFs 75-84, 106-110.) (See Wells Fargo Bank v. Bank of America (1995) 32 15 Cal.App.4" 424, 431-432 (stating that “[nJovation is the substitution of a new obligation for an 16 existing one... [t]he substitution is by agreement and with the intent-to extinguish the prior 17 obligation”).) Moving defendants meet their initial burden as to the second and sixth causes of 18 action, 19 In opposition, Plaintiffs do not make any argument with regards to any novation. 20 Moreover, Plaintiffs’ evidence submitted solely address the issue with regards to the statute of 21 limitations. Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to the 22 second and sixth causes of action. Defendants Patrick and Rosa’s motion for summary 23 adjudication of the second and sixth causes of action is GRANTED, 24 25 Statute of limitations 26 The last issue with regards to the motion for summary adjudication is whether Plaintiffs’ 27 claims are barred by the statute of limitations. In light of the above rulings, the remaining causes 28 of action are the first cause of action for breach of oral agreement, and the fifth cause of action 5 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE for common counts. Both such causes of action must be brought “[w]ithin two years.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 339 (pertaining to “‘an action upon a contract, obligation or liability not founded upon an instrument of writing”).) Moving defendants present evidence that the breach occurred on July 31, 2003. (See evidence cited by UMFs 39-43.) The complaint was not filed until October 28, 2015—more than 12 years later. (See UMF 44.) Moving defendants present evidence demonstrating that Patrick and Rosa have been in the State of California for more than two years since July 31, 2003. (See evidence cited by UMFs 45-46, 67-74.) Moving defendants meet their initial burden to demonstrate that the first and fifth causes of action are barred by the two-year statute of limitations of section 339, 10 In opposition, Plaintiffs’ separate statement does not cite to any evidence demonstrating 1 the existence of a triable issue of material fact; instead, the separate statement merely states 12 “disputed. It is his [or her] statement.” Moreover, the evidence that Plaintiffs have submitted is 13 not admissible evidence that demonstrates the existence of a triable issue of material fact. 14 Instead, Plaintiffs present their own declaration stating that: the Defendants’ passports are 15 counterfeit; Defendants had knowledge of the consequences if they presented genuine passports; 16 Sherry has her own timeline of Patrick and Rosa’s time in California “based on Sherry Hsieh’s lV: best knowledge; there is no rent issue of statute of limitations; and, there is no loan issue of. 18 statute of limitations. (See Pls.’ decl. in opposition to motion for summary adjudication, {ff 1-5.) 19 Plaintiffs also present a copies of Patrick and Rosa’s passports with notes indicating as to how 20 Plaintiffs conclude that the passports are counterfeit, However, moving defendants object to this 21 evidence, and the objections have merit. Defendants Patrick and Rosa’s objections numbers 1- 22 11 are SUSTAINED. The Court did not rely on objections numbers 12-13 in making this Order. 23 In light of the above ruling on the objections, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a triable issue of 24 material fact as to the issue regarding the statute of limitations. Moving defendants’ motion for 25 summary adjudication of the first and fifth causes of action is GRANTED. 26 ‘it 27 ‘If 28 6 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF SHERRY HSIEH AND MIN CHOU Patrick contends that he served initial notices of deposition on December 4, 2017, setting Min Chou’s deposition for March 7, 2018 and Sherry’s deposition for March 14, 2018, but after meeting and conferring multiple times with both Sherry and Min Chou, they rescheduled the depositions for July 10, 2018 for Min Chou and July 11, 2018 for Sherry. After a translator retained for the deposition fell ill, Patrick’s counsel contacted Sherry to notify her of the situation] and sought to reschedule them. According to Patrick’s counsel, he and Sherry agreed to reschedule the depositions for the week of July 23, 2018. Patrick’s counsel sent Sherry a confirmation email memorializing the agreement. On July 10, 2018, Patrick served amended 10 notices of deposition as to both Sherry and Min Chou, scheduled for July 26 and 27. However, 11 after receiving the amended deposition notices, Sherry contacted Patrick’s counsel to let him 12 know that neither she nor Min Chou would appear for deposition on the noticed and agreed upon 13 dates, Patrick moves to compel the deposition of Sherry and Min Chou. 14 Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450 states that “[i]f, after service of a deposition 15 notice, a party to the action... without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, 16 fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it... the party giving the notice may move for 17 an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony...” (Code Civ. Proc, § 2025.450, 18 subd. (a).) “The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 19 2016.040....” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.040, subd. (b)(2).) 20 Here, Patrick contends that he has properly met and conferred with both Min Chou and 21 Sherry; however, the evidence in support of this contention suggests that he has, in fact, only 22 conferred with Sherry. In fact, Patrick’s supporting memorandum confirms that he has only 23 conferred with Sherry, but attempts to excuse this detail, noting that “the Court has allowed Ms. 24 Hsieh to translate for Ms. Chou so that this matter does not become a quagmire of confusion and 25 misunderstanding.” (Patrick’s memorandum of points arid authorities in support of motion to 26 compel depo attendance, p,2:21-23.) Sherry does not represent Min Chou, and, accordingly, 27 cannot make agreements on her behalf, or otherwise speak or confer on her behalf. Patrick fails 28 q ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE to demonstrate that the motion as to Min Chou is proper. Patrick’s motion to compel the deposition attendance of Min Chou is DENIED. As to Sherry, she makes a litany of arguments in opposition—it is against the law to shorten the time to hear and file a motion to compel deposition attendance; Patrick’s counsel cancelled the deposition earlier and Sherry cannot afford to take more vacation time; Patrick’s counsel does not need to conduct a deposition when all he has to do is read the emails; and, Patrick refused to have his deposition taken, so Sherry can do that too—however, Sherry does not cite to any legal authority to support these assertions. In fact, Sherry’s arguments lack merit. Patrick demonstrates good cause for the deposition attendance of Sherry and it appears that 10 Sherry and Patrick have adequately met and conferred, but that Sherry just refuses to comply 11 with the deposition subpoena. Patrick’s motion to compel the deposition attendance of Sherry is} 12 GRANTED. Sherry Hsieh is ORDERED to for deposition in accordance with the deposition 13 notice, at the office of Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, LLP on Monday, September 10, 2018 at 14 10:00 a.m. 15 In association with the motion to compel deposition attendance, Patrick additionally 16 makes a request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,000.00 against Sherry and Min Chou. 17 However, the request is not code-compliant and Patrick has not substantially prevailed against 18 both Sherry and Min Chou. Patrick’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED. 19 20 21 September 4, 2018 Mary E. Arand 22 23 Mary E. Arand Judge of the Superior Court 24 25 26 27 28 8 ORDER RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE ao a SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA wits COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA im DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE 191 NORTH First STREET oer td. SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 CIVIL DIVISION Frank Joseph Perretta Miller Morton Caillat & Nevis 50 W San Fernando Suite 1300 San Jose CA 95113 rte p SEP 05 2018 RE: S. Hsieh, et al vs P. Lin, et al Clerk of the Court ‘Superior Court of CA County of Santa Clara Case Number: 2015-1-CV-287361 BY. Julie-Neshed—CEPUTY PROOF OF SERVICE ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS PATRICK LIN AND ROSA WANG'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION; PATRICK LIN'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION ATTENDANCE OF SHERRY HSIEH AND MIN CHOU was delivered to the parties listed below the above entitled case as set forth in the sworn declaration below. If you, a party represented by you, or a witness to be called on behalf of that party need an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act, please contact the Court Administrator's office at (408) 882-2700, or use the Court's TDD line (408) 882-2690 or the Voice/TOD California Relay Service (800) 735-2922. DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL: | declare that | served this notice by enclosing a true copy in a sealed envelope, addressed to each person whose name is shown below, and by depositing the envelope with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at San Jose, CA on September 05, 2018. CLERK OF THE COURT, by Julie Nashed, Deputy. ce: Sherry Hsieh 52 Dunbarton Ct San Ramon CA 94583 Yeao-Nan Hsieh 52 Dunbarton Ct San Ramon CA 94583 CW-9027 REV 12/08/16 PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE Sherry Hsieh and Yeao-Nan Hsieh v. Patrick Lin, Rosa Lin, et al. Santa Clara Superior Co\irt Case No. 2015-1-CV-287361 (Consolidated with Case No. 16CV303134) STATE OF CALI IRNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA I, the undersigned, declare: I am now at all times herein mentioned have been over the age of eighteen ydars, a resident of the Unite States, employed in Santa Clara County, California, and not a to the within action or\cause; my business address is 50 West San Fernando Street, Suite\1300, San Jose, California 95113. On the date set forth below, I served the below-stated persor\(s) the attached [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT BY MAIL on the lowing party(ies) in said \ction, in accordance with CCP §1013a, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed\envelope addressed as shown below. I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon filly prepaid to be placed in the United States 10 mail at San Jose, Cal\fornia. I am readily familidr with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is depdsited with the U.S. Postal Service on the ti same day in the ordin: course of business. I aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed in\alid if postal cancellation ite or postage meter date is more than one 12 day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit 13 (STATE) | declare und penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and coi 14 Min Chou 15 Sherry Hsieh 10618 La Roda Drive 52 Dunbarton Court Cupertino, CA 95014 16 San Ramon, CA 94583-2568 shinchyi comast.net 17 Yeao-Nan Hsieh 18 52 Dunbarton Court San Ramon, CA 94583-2568 19 20 Executed on September 7, 2018,\at San Jose, California. 21 Se 22 dg G2 Julia C. Tien Se as 23 1294491 Za of sgfa 24 S288 25 zeby OS25 ekes ee Ge ORs go 26 39 27 38 28 PROOF OF SERVICE CIV-130 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Sherry Hsieh and Yeao-Nan Hsieh CASE NUMBER: 2015-1-CV287361 cons w/16CV303134 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Patrick Lin, Rosa Lin, Jemmy Lin, et al. PROOF OF SERVICE BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER (NOTE: You cannot serve the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order if you are a party in the action. The person who served the notice must complete this proof of service.) 1 | am at least 18 years old and not a party to this action. | am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took place, and my residence or business address is (specify): Business 160 W. Santa Clara Street, #1000, San Jose, Ca 95113 | served a copy of the Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order by enclosing it in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid and (check one): a. [__] deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service. Placed the sealed envelope for collection and processing for mailing, following this business's usual practices, with which | am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service. The Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order was mailed: a on (date): 2/4/20 b. from (city and state): San Jose, CA 95113 The envelope was addressed and mailed as follows: a. Name of person served: c. Name of person served: See Attached Proof of Service Street address: Street address: City City: State and zip code: State and zip code: Name of person served: Name of person served: Street address: Street address: City: City: State and zip code: State and zip code: Names and addresses of additional persons served are attached. (You may use form POS-030(P).) 5. Number of pages attached | | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that th ‘Oregoing isfrue and cosréct. Date: 2/4/20 April M. Kitagawa (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE OF DE; RANT) Page 2 of 2 CIV-130 [New January 1, 2010) NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER SERVICE LIST Hsieh y. Lin Case No. 115CV287361 consolidated with 16CV303134 Sherry Hsieh In Pro Per 52 Dunbarton Court San Ramon, CA 94583 ‘Yeao-Nan Hsieh In Pro Per 52 Dunbarton Court San Ramon, CA 94583 Min Chou In Pro Per 10619 La Roda Cupertino, CA 95014