Preview
WU
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Sep-11-2013 10:55 am
Case Number: CGC-10-500934
Filing Date: Sep-14-2012 10:54 am
Filed by: MARYANN E. MORAN
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04197010
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
CATHAY BANK, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORPORATION VS. RAYMOND
XIANG ZHANG et al
001004197010
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
ON27
can a associates, ec,
1440 BROADWAY
SUITE 1000
OAKLAND, CA 94612
(510) 832.1686
Chijeh Hu (SBN 241271)
CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. F I L E, D
1440 Broadway, Suite 1000 Superior “Out of alifornia
Oakland, CA 94612 inty of San Francigeo
Telephone: (510) 832-1686 SEP 14 2012
Fax: (510) 251-1155 c
LERK OF THE ©
Attorney for Defendants/Cross Complainants, By: 6 COURT
RAYMOND ZHANG, et al. Deputy Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CATHAY BANK, a California banking CASE NO: CGC- 10 - 500934
Corporation,
DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
Plaintiff, MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES,
SET ONE (CCP §2030.300) AND FOR
v. MONETARY SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.030,
2030.300(d)); SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM;
RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, et al, | DECLARATION OF MAUREEN MCCUAIG
DISCOVERY
Date: October 17, 2012
Time: 9:00am
Dept.: 302
Defendants.
Complaint filed: June 22, 2010
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On June 12, 2012, Defendant Raymond Zhang (“Defendants”) propounded a set of Form
Interrogatories, Set One upon Plaintiff Cathay Bank (“Plaintiff”) by mail. Decl. of McCuaig, { 3,
Ex. A. On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel sent responses to the discovery via email and such
responses were later received via mail. Decl. of McCuaig, {| 4, Ex. B.
On August 20, 2012, Defendants’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter to resolve some
disputes in Plaintiff's discovery responses by no later than August 27, 2010. Decl. of McCuaig, J
7, Ex. C. On August 27, 2012, Defendants were informed that Plaintiff was in the process of
Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set One27
CaM a ASSOCIATES, Pc.
1440 BROADWAY
‘SUITE 1000
OAKLAND, CA 94612
(510) 832-1686
responding and, in good faith, Defendants offered to accept responses sent via email by 5:00 p.m.
on August 29, 2012. Defendants did not receive such amended responses to Form Interrogatories
that are the subject of the instant motion and Plaintiff’s original responses such interrogatories
remain deficient.
ARGUMENT
A. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE FURTHER
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES WITHIN SEVEN
(7) DAYS OF THE HEARING ON THIS MOTION
Where answers to interrogatories are evasive or incomplete, or where objections to
interrogatories are without merit or too general, the remedy is to file a motion to compel further
responses. C.C.P §2030.300(a)(1), C.C.P §2030.300(a)(3). Plaintiff failed to provide adequate
responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 4.1, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1,
13.2, 15.1(c), 17.1(b) and (d) for Plaintiff's response to Request for Admissions Nos.1, 2, 3, and
11, 17.1(b), (c) and (d) for Plaintiff's response to Request for Admissions Nos. 5 and 6, 17.1(d)
for Plaintiffs response to Request for Admissions Nos. 7, 14, 15 and 17, 50.5 and 50.6 - Set
Onedespite Defendants efforts to meet and confer.
Plaintiff should be ordered to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 4.1,
9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1(c), 17.1(b) and (d) for Plaintiff's
response to Request for Admissions Nos.1, 2, 3, and 11, 17.1(b), (c) and (d) for Plaintiff's
response to Request for Admissions Nos. 5 and 6, 17.1(d) for Plaintiff's response to Request for
Admissions Nos. 7, 14, 15 and 17, 50.5 and 50.6 - Set One by personal delivery within seven (7)
days of the date of this hearing. Plaintiff was granted an extension and had more than sufficient
time to further respond to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories — Set One. Additionally, Plaintiff was
given notice of its deficient responses and ample time to amend them. Nevertheless, the
responses remain inadequate. Under these circumstances, such order is proper and reasonable.
B. DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF FOR
FEES AND COSTS INCURRED IN BRINING THIS MOTION
Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set OneoO mI DH BF WN
RB NY NY NY NY NY NY Be Be Be Be Be Be Be eB Be
DA nA FF BH = SGC we AIR DH BF BW NHN
27
1440 BROADWAY
SUITE 1000
OAKLAND, CA 94612
(510) 832-1686
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person or attorney
who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to interrogatories,
unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” C.C.P §2030.300(d). (Emphasis
added).
In this case, Defendants request monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Cathay Bank for the
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Defendants in bringing this motion in the amount
of $3,500 to be payable within thirty (30) days of the order on this motion. Decl. of McCuaig,
12. The monetary sanctions sought in this case are reasonable because, as shown in Defendants”
Separate Statement of Items in Dispute, Defendants had to spend substantial time responding to
Plaintiff's meritless objections which it refused to withdraw. Decl. of McCuaig Decl. 13.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons cited above, Defendants respectfully request to following:
1. Plaintiff be ordered to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories
propounded by Defendant Raymond Zhang Nos. 4.1, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3,
12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1(c), 17.1(b) and (d) for Plaintiff's
response to Request for Admissions Nos.1, 2, 3, and 11, 17.1(b), (c) and (d) for
Plaintiff's response to Request for Admissions Nos. 5 and 6, 17.1(d) for
Plaintiff's response to Request for Admissions Nos. 7, 14, 15 and 17, 50.5 and
50.6 - Set One;
2. Plaintiff provide further responses by personal service within seven (7) days of
this hearing;
3. Monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record in the amount of
$3,500 payable to Defendants through their counsel within thirty (30) days of
the order on this motion.
Dated: September L , 2012 CJH & ASSOCIATES
Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set One3 Attorney for Defendants and Cross-
Complainants,
4 RAYMOND ZHANG, et al.
27
OAKLAND, CA 94612
(510) 832-1686 Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form
Interrogatories, Set One
Preview
WU SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Sep-11-2013 10:55 am Case Number: CGC-10-500934 Filing Date: Sep-14-2012 10:54 am Filed by: MARYANN E. MORAN Juke Box: 001 Image: 04197010 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES CATHAY BANK, A CALIFORNIA BANKING CORPORATION VS. RAYMOND XIANG ZHANG et al 001004197010 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned. ON27 can a associates, ec, 1440 BROADWAY SUITE 1000 OAKLAND, CA 94612 (510) 832.1686 Chijeh Hu (SBN 241271) CJH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. F I L E, D 1440 Broadway, Suite 1000 Superior “Out of alifornia Oakland, CA 94612 inty of San Francigeo Telephone: (510) 832-1686 SEP 14 2012 Fax: (510) 251-1155 c LERK OF THE © Attorney for Defendants/Cross Complainants, By: 6 COURT RAYMOND ZHANG, et al. Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO CATHAY BANK, a California banking CASE NO: CGC- 10 - 500934 Corporation, DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF Plaintiff, MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE (CCP §2030.300) AND FOR v. MONETARY SANCTIONS (CCP §§2023.030, 2030.300(d)); SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM; RAYMOND XIANG KAI ZHANG, et al, | DECLARATION OF MAUREEN MCCUAIG DISCOVERY Date: October 17, 2012 Time: 9:00am Dept.: 302 Defendants. Complaint filed: June 22, 2010 FACTUAL BACKGROUND On June 12, 2012, Defendant Raymond Zhang (“Defendants”) propounded a set of Form Interrogatories, Set One upon Plaintiff Cathay Bank (“Plaintiff”) by mail. Decl. of McCuaig, { 3, Ex. A. On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff's counsel sent responses to the discovery via email and such responses were later received via mail. Decl. of McCuaig, {| 4, Ex. B. On August 20, 2012, Defendants’ counsel sent a meet and confer letter to resolve some disputes in Plaintiff's discovery responses by no later than August 27, 2010. Decl. of McCuaig, J 7, Ex. C. On August 27, 2012, Defendants were informed that Plaintiff was in the process of Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One27 CaM a ASSOCIATES, Pc. 1440 BROADWAY ‘SUITE 1000 OAKLAND, CA 94612 (510) 832-1686 responding and, in good faith, Defendants offered to accept responses sent via email by 5:00 p.m. on August 29, 2012. Defendants did not receive such amended responses to Form Interrogatories that are the subject of the instant motion and Plaintiff’s original responses such interrogatories remain deficient. ARGUMENT A. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FORM INTERROGATORIES WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF THE HEARING ON THIS MOTION Where answers to interrogatories are evasive or incomplete, or where objections to interrogatories are without merit or too general, the remedy is to file a motion to compel further responses. C.C.P §2030.300(a)(1), C.C.P §2030.300(a)(3). Plaintiff failed to provide adequate responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 4.1, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1(c), 17.1(b) and (d) for Plaintiff's response to Request for Admissions Nos.1, 2, 3, and 11, 17.1(b), (c) and (d) for Plaintiff's response to Request for Admissions Nos. 5 and 6, 17.1(d) for Plaintiffs response to Request for Admissions Nos. 7, 14, 15 and 17, 50.5 and 50.6 - Set Onedespite Defendants efforts to meet and confer. Plaintiff should be ordered to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories Nos. 4.1, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1(c), 17.1(b) and (d) for Plaintiff's response to Request for Admissions Nos.1, 2, 3, and 11, 17.1(b), (c) and (d) for Plaintiff's response to Request for Admissions Nos. 5 and 6, 17.1(d) for Plaintiff's response to Request for Admissions Nos. 7, 14, 15 and 17, 50.5 and 50.6 - Set One by personal delivery within seven (7) days of the date of this hearing. Plaintiff was granted an extension and had more than sufficient time to further respond to Plaintiff's Form Interrogatories — Set One. Additionally, Plaintiff was given notice of its deficient responses and ample time to amend them. Nevertheless, the responses remain inadequate. Under these circumstances, such order is proper and reasonable. B. DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF FOR FEES AND COSTS INCURRED IN BRINING THIS MOTION Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set OneoO mI DH BF WN RB NY NY NY NY NY NY Be Be Be Be Be Be Be eB Be DA nA FF BH = SGC we AIR DH BF BW NHN 27 1440 BROADWAY SUITE 1000 OAKLAND, CA 94612 (510) 832-1686 “The court shall impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” C.C.P §2030.300(d). (Emphasis added). In this case, Defendants request monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Cathay Bank for the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Defendants in bringing this motion in the amount of $3,500 to be payable within thirty (30) days of the order on this motion. Decl. of McCuaig, 12. The monetary sanctions sought in this case are reasonable because, as shown in Defendants” Separate Statement of Items in Dispute, Defendants had to spend substantial time responding to Plaintiff's meritless objections which it refused to withdraw. Decl. of McCuaig Decl. 13. CONCLUSION For the reasons cited above, Defendants respectfully request to following: 1. Plaintiff be ordered to provide further responses to Form Interrogatories propounded by Defendant Raymond Zhang Nos. 4.1, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 13.1, 13.2, 15.1(c), 17.1(b) and (d) for Plaintiff's response to Request for Admissions Nos.1, 2, 3, and 11, 17.1(b), (c) and (d) for Plaintiff's response to Request for Admissions Nos. 5 and 6, 17.1(d) for Plaintiff's response to Request for Admissions Nos. 7, 14, 15 and 17, 50.5 and 50.6 - Set One; 2. Plaintiff provide further responses by personal service within seven (7) days of this hearing; 3. Monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his counsel of record in the amount of $3,500 payable to Defendants through their counsel within thirty (30) days of the order on this motion. Dated: September L , 2012 CJH & ASSOCIATES Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One3 Attorney for Defendants and Cross- Complainants, 4 RAYMOND ZHANG, et al. 27 OAKLAND, CA 94612 (510) 832-1686 Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One