Preview
Daniel T. Bernhard (CSBN 104229)
FREELAND COOPER & FOREMAN LLP
150 Spear Street, Suite 1800 ELECTRONICALLY
San Francisco, California 94105 FILED
T: (415) 541-0200 Superior Court of Catifornia,
F: 415) 495-4332 County of San Francisco
bernhard@freelandlaw.com 05/04/2018
Clerk of the Court
BY: AISHA NELSON
B. Douglas Robbins (CSBN 219413) Deputy Clerk
Kelley Harvilla (CSBN 275123)
WOOD ROBBINS, LLP.
One Post St., Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94104
T: (415) 247-7900
F: (415) 247-7901
drobbins@woodrobbins.com
kharvilla@woodrobbins.com
Attorneys for Petitioner,
JENNIFER SHUK-HAN KWOK
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
JENNIFER SHUK-HAN KWOK, individually, | Case No.: PES-10-293505
and as beneficiary of the Stanley Kwong
Irrevocable Trust I, dated September 8, 2008, SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE
Petitioner, TO BRING CASE TO TRIAL
v. Hearing: May 9, 2018
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Dept.: 204
JEANNE KWONG, individually and as a Judge: John K. Stewart
former trustee of the Stan Kwong Irrevocable
Trust I,
Action filed: May 12, 2010
Respondent.
AND RELATED CROSS-PETITIONS.
SUR-REPLY IN OPP’N TO KWONG’S MTD FOR FAILURE TO BRING CASE TO TRIAL
CASE NO. PES-10-293505Petitioner JENNIFER SHUK-HAN KWOK (“Jennifer”) objects to the new material and
new arguments raised for the first time in Respondent Gary Wong’s reply brief and declaration,
and respectfully requests that this new material not be considered.
IL. ARGUMENT
“Points raised in the reply brief for the first time will not be considered, unless good
reason is shown for failure to present them before.” Feitelberg v. Credit Suisse First Boston,
LLC, 134 Cal. App. 4th 997, 1022 (2005); see Jay v. Mahaffey, 218 Cal. App. 4th 1522, 1537-38
(2013) (“The general rule of motion practice . . . is that new evidence is not permitted with reply
papers .. . [and] should only be allowed in the exceptional case .. . .”); Campos v. Anderson, 57
Cal. App. 4th 784, 794, n.3 (1997). Brand-new arguments in reply are unfair because they are
made after the opposition argument and thus the opponent did not have an opportunity to repond
to them. See Reichardt v. Hoffinan, 52 Cal. App. 4th 754, 764 (1997) (“The California Supreme
Court long ago expressed its hostility to the practice of raising new issues in an appellate reply
brief. Obvious reasons of fairness militate against consideration of an issue raised initially in the
reply brief of an appellant.”). This is why new arguments and new evidence in reply are usually
struck. See Tyler v. Children’s Home Soc'y, 29 Cal. App. 4th 511, 526 (1994) (“However, it is
unfair to raise new arguments for the first time in a reply brief; we therefore need not consider
the contention.”).
Respondent Wong did not submit any moving paper memorandum of points and
authorities, and so his introduction of argument for the first time on reply should be stricken.
Il. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Jennifer respectfully requests that this Court STRIKE the
reply papers of Respondent Gary Wong.
Dated: May 4, 2018 WOOD ROBBINS, LLP
Deus, E,—$<—
B. Paudleghobbiae
Attorneyfor Petitioner
JENNIFER SHUK-HAN KWOK
2
SUR-REPLY IN OPP’N TO MTD FOR FAILURE TO BRING CASE TO TRIAL
CASE NO. PES-10-293505PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Cristina D. Herrera, declare that:
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My
business address is One Post Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, CA 94104.
On May 4, 2018, I served the following documents:
PETITIONER’S SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
FAILURE TO BRING CASE TO TRIAL
in said cause on the following interested parties:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
The documents were served by the following means:
x By United States mail. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package
addressed to the persons at the addresses above and deposited the sealed envelope with
the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid.
By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax
transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed in item 5.
No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax
transmission, which I printed out, is attached.
By overnight delivery. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided
_ by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses above. I
placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a
regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.
By messenger service. I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or
package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5 and providing them
to a professional messenger service for service.
By e-service. Pursuant to San Francisco County Superior Court Local Rule 2.10, I
caused the documents described above to be transmitted to an approved vendor for e-
service on May 4, 2018 on the persons listed above. No error was reported in the
transmission of the documents.
By electronic mail. I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic
service addressed listed in above.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed May 4, 2018, at San Francisco, California.
LBM C0
Cristina D, Herrera
15s
PROOF OF SERVICE, CASE NO. PES-10-293505SERVICE LIST
Kwok v. Kwong
Case No. PES-10-293505 (San Francisco Super. Ct. 2010)
Christine Tour-Sarkissian, Esq.
Paul Tour-Sarkissian, Esq.
Phil Foster, Esq.
TOUR-SARKISSIAN LAW OFFICES
211 Gough Street, Third Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 626-7744
Facsimile: (415) 626-8189
Email: phil@tslo.com; paul@tslo.com
Richard M. Bryan, Esq.
BRYAN HINSHAW, P.C.
425 California Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 269-0800
Facsimile: (415) 296-0812
Email: rbryan@bryanhinshaw.com
Carl Lippenberger, Esq.
Law Offices of Carl Lippenberger
Shelterpoint Business Center
591 Redwood Hwy., Suite 2375
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Telephone: (415) 389-8900
Facsimile: (415) 381-4301
Email: carl@lippengerlaw.com
Edward S. Zusman, Esq.
MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON LLP
465 California Street, Suite 401
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 438-4515
Facsimile: (415) 434-4505
Daniel T. Bernhard, Esq.
FREELAND COOPER & FOREMAN LLP.
150 Spear Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 541-0200
Facsimile: (415) 495-4332
Email: Bernhard@freelandlaw.com
134
Counsel for Respondent JEANNE
KWONG
Counsel for Cross-Respondent
FENG OUYANG
Counsel for Judgment Creditors LAU
KWONG and LARRY KWONG
Counsel for Respondent GARY
WONG
Co-Counsel for Petitioner
JENNIFER SHUK-HAN KWOK
PROOF OF SERVICE, CASE NO. PES-10-293505
Preview
Daniel T. Bernhard (CSBN 104229) FREELAND COOPER & FOREMAN LLP 150 Spear Street, Suite 1800 ELECTRONICALLY San Francisco, California 94105 FILED T: (415) 541-0200 Superior Court of Catifornia, F: 415) 495-4332 County of San Francisco bernhard@freelandlaw.com 05/04/2018 Clerk of the Court BY: AISHA NELSON B. Douglas Robbins (CSBN 219413) Deputy Clerk Kelley Harvilla (CSBN 275123) WOOD ROBBINS, LLP. One Post St., Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94104 T: (415) 247-7900 F: (415) 247-7901 drobbins@woodrobbins.com kharvilla@woodrobbins.com Attorneys for Petitioner, JENNIFER SHUK-HAN KWOK IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO JENNIFER SHUK-HAN KWOK, individually, | Case No.: PES-10-293505 and as beneficiary of the Stanley Kwong Irrevocable Trust I, dated September 8, 2008, SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE Petitioner, TO BRING CASE TO TRIAL v. Hearing: May 9, 2018 Time: 2:00 p.m. Dept.: 204 JEANNE KWONG, individually and as a Judge: John K. Stewart former trustee of the Stan Kwong Irrevocable Trust I, Action filed: May 12, 2010 Respondent. AND RELATED CROSS-PETITIONS. SUR-REPLY IN OPP’N TO KWONG’S MTD FOR FAILURE TO BRING CASE TO TRIAL CASE NO. PES-10-293505Petitioner JENNIFER SHUK-HAN KWOK (“Jennifer”) objects to the new material and new arguments raised for the first time in Respondent Gary Wong’s reply brief and declaration, and respectfully requests that this new material not be considered. IL. ARGUMENT “Points raised in the reply brief for the first time will not be considered, unless good reason is shown for failure to present them before.” Feitelberg v. Credit Suisse First Boston, LLC, 134 Cal. App. 4th 997, 1022 (2005); see Jay v. Mahaffey, 218 Cal. App. 4th 1522, 1537-38 (2013) (“The general rule of motion practice . . . is that new evidence is not permitted with reply papers .. . [and] should only be allowed in the exceptional case .. . .”); Campos v. Anderson, 57 Cal. App. 4th 784, 794, n.3 (1997). Brand-new arguments in reply are unfair because they are made after the opposition argument and thus the opponent did not have an opportunity to repond to them. See Reichardt v. Hoffinan, 52 Cal. App. 4th 754, 764 (1997) (“The California Supreme Court long ago expressed its hostility to the practice of raising new issues in an appellate reply brief. Obvious reasons of fairness militate against consideration of an issue raised initially in the reply brief of an appellant.”). This is why new arguments and new evidence in reply are usually struck. See Tyler v. Children’s Home Soc'y, 29 Cal. App. 4th 511, 526 (1994) (“However, it is unfair to raise new arguments for the first time in a reply brief; we therefore need not consider the contention.”). Respondent Wong did not submit any moving paper memorandum of points and authorities, and so his introduction of argument for the first time on reply should be stricken. Il. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Jennifer respectfully requests that this Court STRIKE the reply papers of Respondent Gary Wong. Dated: May 4, 2018 WOOD ROBBINS, LLP Deus, E,—$<— B. Paudleghobbiae Attorneyfor Petitioner JENNIFER SHUK-HAN KWOK 2 SUR-REPLY IN OPP’N TO MTD FOR FAILURE TO BRING CASE TO TRIAL CASE NO. PES-10-293505PROOF OF SERVICE I, Cristina D. Herrera, declare that: At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business address is One Post Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, CA 94104. On May 4, 2018, I served the following documents: PETITIONER’S SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO BRING CASE TO TRIAL in said cause on the following interested parties: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST The documents were served by the following means: x By United States mail. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses above and deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid. By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed in item 5. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is attached. By overnight delivery. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided _ by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. By messenger service. I served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. By e-service. Pursuant to San Francisco County Superior Court Local Rule 2.10, I caused the documents described above to be transmitted to an approved vendor for e- service on May 4, 2018 on the persons listed above. No error was reported in the transmission of the documents. By electronic mail. I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic service addressed listed in above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed May 4, 2018, at San Francisco, California. LBM C0 Cristina D, Herrera 15s PROOF OF SERVICE, CASE NO. PES-10-293505SERVICE LIST Kwok v. Kwong Case No. PES-10-293505 (San Francisco Super. Ct. 2010) Christine Tour-Sarkissian, Esq. Paul Tour-Sarkissian, Esq. Phil Foster, Esq. TOUR-SARKISSIAN LAW OFFICES 211 Gough Street, Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 626-7744 Facsimile: (415) 626-8189 Email: phil@tslo.com; paul@tslo.com Richard M. Bryan, Esq. BRYAN HINSHAW, P.C. 425 California Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 269-0800 Facsimile: (415) 296-0812 Email: rbryan@bryanhinshaw.com Carl Lippenberger, Esq. Law Offices of Carl Lippenberger Shelterpoint Business Center 591 Redwood Hwy., Suite 2375 Mill Valley, CA 94941 Telephone: (415) 389-8900 Facsimile: (415) 381-4301 Email: carl@lippengerlaw.com Edward S. Zusman, Esq. MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON LLP 465 California Street, Suite 401 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 438-4515 Facsimile: (415) 434-4505 Daniel T. Bernhard, Esq. FREELAND COOPER & FOREMAN LLP. 150 Spear Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 541-0200 Facsimile: (415) 495-4332 Email: Bernhard@freelandlaw.com 134 Counsel for Respondent JEANNE KWONG Counsel for Cross-Respondent FENG OUYANG Counsel for Judgment Creditors LAU KWONG and LARRY KWONG Counsel for Respondent GARY WONG Co-Counsel for Petitioner JENNIFER SHUK-HAN KWOK PROOF OF SERVICE, CASE NO. PES-10-293505