Motion for Summary Adjudication in S. Hsieh, et al vs P. Lin, et al| Trellis.Law

On October 28, 2015 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Chi-Kan Liu, Li-Yuan Liu, Patrick Lin, Sherry Hsieh, Yeao-Nan Hsieh, and Jemmy Lin, May Lin, Min Chou, Patrick Lin, Rosa Wang, Sherry Hsieh, for Other Petition (Not Spec) Unlimited (43) in the District Court of Santa Clara County.

Preview
FRANK J. PERRETTA, ESQ., SBN 126947
| fip@millermorton.com
M. JONATHAN ROBB, JR., ESQ., SBN 290457
mjr@millermorton.com
MILLER, MORTON, CAILLAT & NEVIS, LLP
50 West San Fernando Street, Suite 1300
San Jose, California 95113
Telephone: (408) 292-1765
Facsimile: (408) 436-8272

Attorneys for Defendants
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,
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO SHERRY
13 vs. HSIEH AND YEAO-NAN HSIEH’S
EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
14 PATRICK LIN, ROSA LIN, JEMMY LIN, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
and MAY LIN, and DOES 1 through 10, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
15
Defendants. Date: September 4, 2018
16 Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept: 9
17 Before: Honorable Mary E. Arand

18 ANP CONSOLIDATED ACTION Trial Date: October 22, 2018

20 Defendants Patrick Lin and Rosa Wang (erroneously responded to as Rosa Lin) hereby
21 submit their objections to Plaintiffs Sherry Hsieh and Yeao-Nan Hsieh’s evidence in support of their

Se 22 motion for summary adjudication.
ag
ge
as 23 Objections to “Declaration of Plaintiffs’ opposition of defendants’ motion for summary
Za
BO oF
Ea
kSoo
S§8e8 24 adjudication”
<8
3368
Segt 25 T
Zese Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection
5§se
eres 4 1 of Declaration of Plaintiffs’ Opposition This statement fails to state “personal
regs
O8%D 26
ga of Defendants’ Motion for Summary knowledge, shall set forth admissible
Adjudication (“Plaintiffs’ Declaration”): evidence, and shall show affirmatively that
ae
27 the affiant is competent to testify to the
28
Defendants’ passports are mostly counterfeit matiers stated.” (Code Civ. Proc. §
28 or refused to be inspected by plaintiffs. 437c(d).
1
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO SHERRY HSIEH AND YEAO-NAN HSIEH’S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection

Sherry Hsieh proposed two questions Specifically, the statement contains expert
regarding the document examiners to opinion (Evid. Code § 801) but lacks any
defendants’ attorney Jon Robb. Jon Robb indication of personal knowledge (Evid.
gave Sherry Hsieh hard time and refused the Code, § 702), lacks foundation (Evid.
two examiners Sherry Hsieh proposed. Code, § 403), is an improper expert
.
Attorney Jon Robb certainly knew defendants opinion from an unqualified lay witness
passports are mostly counterfeit. lacking any stated basis for their opinions
(Evid. Code, § 720; see also Weil &
Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil
Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group
2018) (“Rutter”) J 10:124, p. 10-53 [citing
Towns v. Davidson (2007) 147
Cal.App.4th 461 (“Towns’’)]), lacks
relevancy (Evid. Code, § § 210.), and is an
inaccurate representation of prior hearings
before this Court in which Plaintiff's
10 motion to compel an inspection of the
passports was denied.
11
Further, this statement is not a request for
12 additional discovery pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure, section 437c(h).
13
As to Yeao-Nan Hsieh alone, it is also
14 hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200).
15
2 of Plaintiffs’ Declaration: This statement fails to state “personal
16 knowledge, shall set forth admissible
Defendants knew the consequences if they evidence, and shall show affirmatively that
17 presented the genuine passports. the affiant is competent to testify to the
matters stated.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
18 Defendant /sic] knew they would lose on the 437¢(d).
issue of statute of limitation if they presented
19 their genuine passports. Specifically, the statement lacks any
indication of personal knowledge (Evid.
20 Code, § 702), lacks foundation (Evid.
Code, § 403), and lacks relevancy (Evid.
21 Code, § § 210.),
Se 22 As to Yeao-Nan Hsieh alone, it is also
ag
ge hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200).
>2
as 23
Za
a2oF
Pere 4 3 of Plaintiffs’ Declaration: This statement fails to state “personal
bs 24
j8 8a knowledge, shall set forth admissible
SEgt
3& Sherry Hsieh list Patrick Lin and Ros: evidence, and shall show affirmatively that
25 Wang’s timeline. the affiant is competent to testify to the
ZESe
osss
etes matters stated.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
ress 26
Os Based on Sherry Hsieh’s best knowledge, 437e(d).
«fs Sherry Hsieh lists Patrick Lin and Rosa
ws
ae
27 Wang’s timeline. Specifically, the statement lacks any
28
indication of personal knowledge (Evid.
28 Please see EXHIBIT C and EXHIBIT D. Code. § 702), and lacks foundation (Evid.
2
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO SHERRY HSIFH AND YEAO-NAN HSIEH’S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Material Obiected to: Grounds for Objection
Code, § 403),

Plaintiffs’ statement contradicts prior
statements made in their discovery
responses. (Rutter, § 10:155, p. 10-65
[citing Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc.
(2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510].)

[insert prior discovery]

As to Yeao-Nan Hsieh alone, it is also
hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200).

4. | 44 of Plaintiffs’ Declaration: This statement fails to state “personal
knowledge, shall set forth admissible
There is no rent issue of Statute of limitation. evidence, and shall show affirmatively that
10 the affiant is competent to testify to the
Patrick Lin and Rosa Wang returned the rental matters stated.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
ll property to plaintiff
on June 30, 2015. 4370(d).
Plaintiff filed suit within four months after
12 defendants moved out. There is no rent issue The legal conclusions contained herein are
of statute of limitation. not the facts required. (Code Civ. Proc., §
13 4370(b).)
14 The facts asserted contradict Plaintiffs’
First Amended Complaint and their prior
15 discovery responses.
16 [5 of Plaintiffs’ Declaration: This statement fails to state “personal
knowledge, shall set forth admissible
17 There is no loan issue of Statute of limitation. evidence, and shall show affirmatively that
the affiant is competent to testify to the
18 The agreement between Patrick Lin and Yeao- matters stated.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
Nan Hsieh about the payment of the loan is 4370(d).
19 scheduled to start after Patrick Lin pay off the
loan to Erie Liu. The legal conclusions contained herein are
20 not the facts required. (Code Civ. Proc., §
437c(b).)
21
The facts asserted contradict Plaintiffs’
Se 22 | First Amended Complaint and their prior
ag
oe | discovery responses.
22
as 23
20 et
eee
£258 24
£aa Objections to “Plaintiffs’ evidence to oppose defendants’ motion for summary
ss
OF = adjudication” (“Plaintiffs’ Evidence”):
25
ZESw
oases
Pecs Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection
eeBS
Oss 26
22 | 1 of Plaintiffs’ Evidence to Oppose This statement fails to state “personal
eg Defendants’ Motion for Summa knowledge, shall set forth admissible
us
ae
27 Adjudication (“Plaintiffs’ Evidence”): evidence, and shall show affirmatively that
2g
the affiant is competent to testify to the
28 Patrick Lin’s Taiwanese passport issued on matters stated.” (Code Civ. Proc. §
3
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TQ SHERRY HSIEH AND YEAO-NAN HSIEH’S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO)
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection
May 15, 2001 is counterfeit. 437¢(d).
Sherry Hsieh examined Patrick Lin’s
Taiwanese passport and suspected that Patrick Specifically, the statement contains expert
Lin cut out his own passport’s biographical opinion (Evid. Code § 801) but lacks any
page and pasted it onto another person’s indication of personal knowledge (Evid.
passport. After the paste, Patrick Lin Code, § 702), lacks foundation (Evid.
laminated the biographical page a second time Code, § 403), is an improper expert
on top of the biographical page’s original opinion from an unqualified lay witness
lamination. lacking any stated basis for their opinions
(Evid. Code, § 720; see also Rutter, {
Please see Defendant’s Exhibit 1. Page 10:124, p. 10-53 [citing Towns]), and is
LIN000026 shows the passport issue date is not material to this motion.
May 15, 2001.
Please see Defendant’s Exhibit 1. Page Further, this statement is not a request for
LIN00030 shows a Japanese visa issued on additional discovery pursuant to Code of
October 18, 2000. How can a visa be issued Civil Procedure, section 437c(h).
10 prior to passport issue date? This passport is a
counterfeit. As to Yeao-Nan Hsieh alone, it is also
11 hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200).

12 [2 of Plaintiffs’ Evidence: This statement fails to state “personal
knowledge, shall set forth admissible
13 Rosa Wang’s Taiwanese passport issued o1 evidence, and shall show affirmatively that
April 5, 2002, is counterfeit. the affiant is competent to testify to the
14 matters stated.” (Code Civ. Proc. §
Sherry Hsieh examined Rosa Wang’s 4370(d).
15 Taiwanese /sic] and suspected that Rosa
Wang cut out her own passport’s biographical
16 page and pasted it onto another person’s Specifically, the statement contains expert
passport. After the paste, Rosa Wang opinion (Evid. Code § 801) but lacks any
17 laminated the biographical page a second time indication of personal knowledge (Evid.
on top of the biographical page’s original Code, § 702), lacks foundation (Evid.
18 genuine lamination. Code, § 403), is an improper expert
opinion from an unqualified lay witness
19 Please see Defendant’s Exhibit 2. Page lacking any stated basis for their opinions
LIN000077 shows the biographical page of (Evid. Code, § 720; see also Rutter, §
20 the passport. 10:124, p. 10-53 [citing Towns]), and is
Please see Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. Page I shows not material to this motion.
21 the copy of genuine biographical page. If you
compare this page from plaintiffs’ provided Further, this statement is not a request for
Se 22 with Exhibit 2 - Page LIN000077, Page additional discovery pursuant to Code of
38
oe LIN000077 is very blurred because Page Civil Procedure, section 437c(h).
2
as 23 LIN000077 has an extra laminate overlay.
Zo ot
Be Bow As to Yeao-Nan Hsieh alone, it is also
5358 24
oes hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200).
<8
ziby 25 3 of Plaintiffs’ Evidence: This statement fails to state “personal
Sate
efes knowledge, shall set forth admissible
eeee 26
oss Patrick Lin’s U.S. passport issued on August evidence, and shall show affirmatively that
“8 10, 2005 may be counterfeit. the affiant is competent to testify to the
ws
ae
27 matters stated.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
23
28
Based on Taiwan’s immigration law, when 437e(d).
US, citizens leave Taiwan for the U.S.
4
DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO SHERRY HSIEH AND YEAO-NAN HSIEH’S EVIDENCE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Material Objected to: Grounds for Objection
Taiwan’s immigration service will stamp
“Departure on date” in Patrick Lin’s U.S. Specifically, the statement contains expert
passport. Patrick Lin claimed that he entered opinion (Evid. Code § 801) but lacks any
the U.S. from Taiwan at least ten times from indication of personal knowledge (Evid.
July 2007 through February 16, 2015. There Code, § 702), lacks foundation (Evid.
should be ten stamps in the passport showing Code, § 403), is an improper expert
his departures from Taiwan. Sherry Hsieh opinion from an unqualified lay witness
only found one departure stamp in Patrick lacking any stated basis for their opinions
Lin’s passport. Where are the other nine (Evid. Code, § 720; see also Rutter, §
stamps? 10:124, p. 10-53 [citing Towns]), and is
not material to this motion.

Further, this statement is not a request for
additional discovery pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure, section 437c(h).

As to Yeao-Nan Hsieh alone, it is also
10 hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200).

11 {| 4 of Plaintiffs’ Evidence: This statement fails to state “personal
knowledge, shall set forth admissible
12 Rosa Wang’s U.S. passport issued on August evidence, and shall show affirmatively that
10, 2005 is counterfeit. the affiant is competent to testify to the
13 matters stated.” (Code Civ. Proc. §
Sherry Hsieh examined this passport and 4370(d).
14 suspected that Rosa Wang cut out the pages
except for the biographical page and replaced
15 these pages in her US passport keeping only Specifically, the statement contains expert
the original biographical page. opinion (Evid. Code § 801) but lacks any
16 indication of personal knowledge (Evid.
Please see Defendant’s Exhibit 2 Page Code, § 702), lacks foundation (Evid.
17 LIN000064 shows the biographical page of Code, § 403), is an improper expert
the passport. opinion from an unqualified lay witness
18 Please see Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B Page 1 shows lacking any stated basis for their opinions
the enlarged biographical page of this (Evid. Code, § 720; see also Rutter, |
19 passport. 10:124, p. 10-53 [citing Towns]), and is
Please see Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B Page 2 shows not material to this motion.
20 an enlarged biographical page of genuine
passport. Further, this statement is not a request for
21 Please see Plaintiff's Exhibit B explains why additional discovery pursuant to Code of
Rosa Wang’s U.S. passport is counterfeit. Civil Procedure, section 437c(h).
Se 22
a8
oe As to Yeao-Nan Hsieh alone, it is also
Se
os 23 hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1200).
Za ot
8 ee
gene
2BRn 24 10 4/5 of Plaintiffs’ Evidence: This statement fails to state “personal
35

Case Info

Judge

Maureen A. Folan Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 24, 2018

Case Filing Date

October 28, 2015

County

Parties

Chi-Kan Liu Plaintiff
Frank Joseph Perretta Attorney For The Plaintiff
Jemmy Lin Defendant
Li-Yuan Liu Plaintiff
May Lin Defendant
Min Chou Defendant
Patrick Lin Defendant
Patrick Lin Plaintiff
Rosa Wang Defendant
Sherry Hsieh Defendant
Sherry Hsieh Plaintiff
Yeao-Nan Hsieh Plaintiff
Michael Robb Attorneys for Defendants
Robb Attorney
Andy Chen Attorneys for Plaintiffs
David Song Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: S. Hsieh, et al vs P. Lin, et al

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties