Preview
DAVID J. MICLEAN (SBN 115098)
FILED
SAN MATrn'n nmmTY
dmiclean@micleangleason.com
DANIELLE M. MIHALKANIN (SBN 271442) ~
DEC 02 2019
dmihalkanin@micleangleason.com
MICLEAN GLEASON LLP
41 1 Borel Avenue, Suite 3 10
San Mateo, CA 94402
Telephone: (650) 684—1 181
Facsimile: (650) 684-1 182
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross—Complainant
Solomon Sha
WK SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
SWEET PRODUCTION, INC., a California Case No. 18—CIV—031 10
Corporation,
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT SOLOMON SHA’S REPLY IN
SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR
v.
TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND
MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST
PLAINTIFF SWEET PRODUCTION, INC.
SOLOMON SHA, an individual; and DOES 1 to
10, inclusive,
Defendants. Date: December 5, 2019
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: 1 (Hon. Leland Davis, III)
SOLOMON SHA,
Cross—Complainant, '**
18—
—c:v_ 93 11a ‘_
622 v.
I‘MM
PAR
‘Memarandum
214910
"a
of Points
and Authorities'
m Re,
SWEET PRODUCTION, INC, a California
corporation; SWEET EXPRESS; MING CHIN; ////ll/Il/Il/Il/I/l/II/I/Il/Ill/I/Il/I/l
DOREEN CHIN; and ROES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
Cross-Defendants.
\
REPLY ISO SHA SANCTIONS MOTION CASE NO. 18-CIV-03 1 10
REM
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Sweet Production, Inc. (“SPI” or “P1aintiff’) did not file any opposition t0 this motion
for terminating sanctions as to the complaint filed by SPI that initiated this action. Since filing the
complaint against Solomon Sha (“Sha”) in June 2018, SPI has never served any discovery, responded
to any discovery (after stipulating to do so in June 2019 and being compelled to do so in November
QON
2019), responded to Sha’s deménd for expert witness information and reports, served any expert
witness disclosures, and has tactically chosen to go radio silent on all forms of meet and confer and
other communications except appearing at a Mandatory Settlement Conference in June 2019 and
10 claiming readiness for trial (by ambush).1 Sha isthe victim in this case — Sha has been the Victim of
11 SPI and the Chins’ self—dealing prior to the commencement of this case, being wrongfillly terminated
12 from his job and cut off from a company (and itsprofits) that he owns. Then Sha has been subjected to
13 SPI and the Chins’ outright discovery abuse, being forced to file numerous motions for rélief, including.
14 this motion, to dismiss the complaint against him and obtain monetary sanctions for SPI’s complete
15 misuse of the court system. Sha has been prejudiced by SPI’s actions and is entitled to have the case
16 against him terminated.
17 II. ARGUMENT
18 A. Sha’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions or an Order Shortening Time and this
19 Court’s Order Shortening Time was Properly Served
20 On November 18, 2019, after appearing ex part6 for an order shortening time on this Motion, the
21 complete packet 0f the Motion, Supporting Declaration, Exhibits, and this Court’s Order Shortening
22 Time was both emailed to SPI’s counsel and served by second-day federal express Which was received
23 and signed for on November 20, 2019. Declaration of Danielle Mihalkanin in Support of Sha’s Reply
24 (“Mihalkanin Decl.”), Ex. A and C.
25 Trial is presently scheduled for January 6, 2020 and to date Sha has never received a single
26 discovery response or document production from SPI. Id. at 11
7.
27 1
Sha is also appearing on December 17, 2019 for a prove-up hearing on Sha’s default judgment against
28 SPI and the Chins for their default on the cross—complaint.
REPLY ISO SHA SANCTIONS MOTION CASE No. 18—CIV—03 1 10
B. SPI’s Abuse 0f the Court System Should Not Allowed to Continue
SPI is fully aware of each and every one 0f Sha’s motions and itsdiscovery obligations that it is
flouting. SP1 previously admitted to making a tactical decision to not respond to any discovery and not
respond to Sha’s February and May motions to compel. See SPI’s Opposition to Sha’s Motion for
Leave to File and Have Heard Sha’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions or Alternatively to Reopen and
Compel Discovery, 5 (filed Aug. 16, 2019). Even after SPI stipulated t0 produce documents in June
2019, no documents were produced. See Mihalkanin Decl., 11
7. Then after discovery was reopened and
Sha generously gave SPI
\OOOVG
until early October 2019 to produce documents and respond t0 additional
discovery, no responses were ever received and not a single document was produced. Id. Even after the
10 court ordered SPI to produce documents by November 10, 2019, SPI produced no documents in
11 violation 0f that order. Id. SPI did not even file an opposition to this motion.
12 SPI is again choosing to go radio silent now. SPI’s pattern 0f repeated abuses of the discovery
13 process is clear and sanctionable and SPI has no justification for itsrefusal to participate in a court
14 action that it initiated. By SPI’s own argument, “had SPI disobeyed [a single court order compelling
15 discovery responses], this too could have been construed as a misuse of the discovery process” and be
16 sanctionable. (See SPI’s Opposition to Sha’s Motion for Leave to File and Have Heard Sha’s Motion
17 for Terminating Sanctions or Alternatively to Reopen and Compel Discovery (filed Aug. 16, 2019) at6
18 (attached hereto as Mihalkanin Dec1., Ex. D).) SPI should not be allowed to continue its gameplaying,
19 subterfuge, and wholesale failure t0 participate in discovery, meet-and-confer efforts,and Sha’s
20 investigation of SPI".s fiivolous claims against Sha —and require Sha to expend money 0n motions and
21 trialprep. SPI’s complaint should be terminated.
22
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
REPLY ISO SHA SANCTIONS MOTION CASE No. 18—CIV-03 1 10
III. CONCLUSION
Sha respectfully requests that the Court grant his motion to impose terminating and monetary
sanctions against SPI and that SPI’s complaint be terminated and dismissed.
Dated: December 2, 2019 Respectfully Submitted:
MICLEAN GLEASON LLP
\OOONON
44‘
[David
Danielle
J. Miclean
M. Mihalkanin
10 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
SOLOMON SHA
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REPLY ISO SHA SANCTIONS MOTION CASE NO. 18—CIV—03 1 10
Preview
DAVID J. MICLEAN (SBN 115098) FILED SAN MATrn'n nmmTY dmiclean@micleangleason.com DANIELLE M. MIHALKANIN (SBN 271442) ~ DEC 02 2019 dmihalkanin@micleangleason.com MICLEAN GLEASON LLP 41 1 Borel Avenue, Suite 3 10 San Mateo, CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 684—1 181 Facsimile: (650) 684-1 182 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross—Complainant Solomon Sha WK SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO SWEET PRODUCTION, INC., a California Case No. 18—CIV—031 10 Corporation, Plaintiff, DEFENDANT SOLOMON SHA’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION FOR v. TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF SWEET PRODUCTION, INC. SOLOMON SHA, an individual; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants. Date: December 5, 2019 Time: 9:00 a.m. Department: 1 (Hon. Leland Davis, III) SOLOMON SHA, Cross—Complainant, '** 18— —c:v_ 93 11a ‘_ 622 v. I‘MM PAR ‘Memarandum 214910 "a of Points and Authorities' m Re, SWEET PRODUCTION, INC, a California corporation; SWEET EXPRESS; MING CHIN; ////ll/Il/Il/Il/I/l/II/I/Il/Ill/I/Il/I/l DOREEN CHIN; and ROES 1 through 10, inclusive, Cross-Defendants. \ REPLY ISO SHA SANCTIONS MOTION CASE NO. 18-CIV-03 1 10 REM I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Sweet Production, Inc. (“SPI” or “P1aintiff’) did not file any opposition t0 this motion for terminating sanctions as to the complaint filed by SPI that initiated this action. Since filing the complaint against Solomon Sha (“Sha”) in June 2018, SPI has never served any discovery, responded to any discovery (after stipulating to do so in June 2019 and being compelled to do so in November QON 2019), responded to Sha’s deménd for expert witness information and reports, served any expert witness disclosures, and has tactically chosen to go radio silent on all forms of meet and confer and other communications except appearing at a Mandatory Settlement Conference in June 2019 and 10 claiming readiness for trial (by ambush).1 Sha isthe victim in this case — Sha has been the Victim of 11 SPI and the Chins’ self—dealing prior to the commencement of this case, being wrongfillly terminated 12 from his job and cut off from a company (and itsprofits) that he owns. Then Sha has been subjected to 13 SPI and the Chins’ outright discovery abuse, being forced to file numerous motions for rélief, including. 14 this motion, to dismiss the complaint against him and obtain monetary sanctions for SPI’s complete 15 misuse of the court system. Sha has been prejudiced by SPI’s actions and is entitled to have the case 16 against him terminated. 17 II. ARGUMENT 18 A. Sha’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions or an Order Shortening Time and this 19 Court’s Order Shortening Time was Properly Served 20 On November 18, 2019, after appearing ex part6 for an order shortening time on this Motion, the 21 complete packet 0f the Motion, Supporting Declaration, Exhibits, and this Court’s Order Shortening 22 Time was both emailed to SPI’s counsel and served by second-day federal express Which was received 23 and signed for on November 20, 2019. Declaration of Danielle Mihalkanin in Support of Sha’s Reply 24 (“Mihalkanin Decl.”), Ex. A and C. 25 Trial is presently scheduled for January 6, 2020 and to date Sha has never received a single 26 discovery response or document production from SPI. Id. at 11 7. 27 1 Sha is also appearing on December 17, 2019 for a prove-up hearing on Sha’s default judgment against 28 SPI and the Chins for their default on the cross—complaint. REPLY ISO SHA SANCTIONS MOTION CASE No. 18—CIV—03 1 10 B. SPI’s Abuse 0f the Court System Should Not Allowed to Continue SPI is fully aware of each and every one 0f Sha’s motions and itsdiscovery obligations that it is flouting. SP1 previously admitted to making a tactical decision to not respond to any discovery and not respond to Sha’s February and May motions to compel. See SPI’s Opposition to Sha’s Motion for Leave to File and Have Heard Sha’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions or Alternatively to Reopen and Compel Discovery, 5 (filed Aug. 16, 2019). Even after SPI stipulated t0 produce documents in June 2019, no documents were produced. See Mihalkanin Decl., 11 7. Then after discovery was reopened and Sha generously gave SPI \OOOVG until early October 2019 to produce documents and respond t0 additional discovery, no responses were ever received and not a single document was produced. Id. Even after the 10 court ordered SPI to produce documents by November 10, 2019, SPI produced no documents in 11 violation 0f that order. Id. SPI did not even file an opposition to this motion. 12 SPI is again choosing to go radio silent now. SPI’s pattern 0f repeated abuses of the discovery 13 process is clear and sanctionable and SPI has no justification for itsrefusal to participate in a court 14 action that it initiated. By SPI’s own argument, “had SPI disobeyed [a single court order compelling 15 discovery responses], this too could have been construed as a misuse of the discovery process” and be 16 sanctionable. (See SPI’s Opposition to Sha’s Motion for Leave to File and Have Heard Sha’s Motion 17 for Terminating Sanctions or Alternatively to Reopen and Compel Discovery (filed Aug. 16, 2019) at6 18 (attached hereto as Mihalkanin Dec1., Ex. D).) SPI should not be allowed to continue its gameplaying, 19 subterfuge, and wholesale failure t0 participate in discovery, meet-and-confer efforts,and Sha’s 20 investigation of SPI".s fiivolous claims against Sha —and require Sha to expend money 0n motions and 21 trialprep. SPI’s complaint should be terminated. 22 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 REPLY ISO SHA SANCTIONS MOTION CASE No. 18—CIV-03 1 10 III. CONCLUSION Sha respectfully requests that the Court grant his motion to impose terminating and monetary sanctions against SPI and that SPI’s complaint be terminated and dismissed. Dated: December 2, 2019 Respectfully Submitted: MICLEAN GLEASON LLP \OOONON 44‘ [David Danielle J. Miclean M. Mihalkanin 10 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant SOLOMON SHA 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REPLY ISO SHA SANCTIONS MOTION CASE NO. 18—CIV—03 1 10