Preview
1/13/2020
MURPHY COOKE KOBRICK LLP
CHRISTOPHER C. COOKE (CA Bar f/142342)
177 Bovet Road, Suite 600
San Mateo, CA 94402
Email: ccooke mckllp.corn
Tel: (650) 638-2370
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MFI-FANG LISA ZHANG
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
12
MEI-FANG I..ISA ZHANG, Case No.: 19-CV-04461
13
Plaintiff,
14
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER
vs. COOKE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S
15
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'OTION
16 BERNARD C. LEUNG, IOSEPH TSE, TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
WENDY LUN, LUN Ec ASSOCIATES, AND
DOES I I THROI.JGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Date: lanuary 27, 2020
Time: 9 a,m.
Defendants.
Place: Law 68 Motion Dept..
19
Complaint Filed: 8/I/2019
20
22
23
I, Christopher C. Cooke, derlare and state:
1. I am a member of the bar of the State of California and am counsel for plaintiff,
25
Mei-Fang Zhang, in this case. I make this declaration of my personal knowledge and, if called a
26
a witness, can and would testify competently to the facts set forth in this declaration.
2. I filed this lawsuit on behalf of plaintiff, Mei-Fang Lisa Zhang, on or about
28
August I, 2019. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Complaint. The
Cooke Dec ISO Plaintiff s Opposition to Motion to 12nash/Case No. 19CV04461
lawsuit was filed after several months of communications between me and Joseph Tse about his
reasons for filing the petition and his claims that he was authorized to file this action by Ms.
Zhang. Therefore, by the time that I filed this lawsuit, on or about August I, I had already
apprised Mr. Tse of my intention to file this lawsuit.
A. Efforts to Serve Wendy I,un, Joseph Tse, and I. un & Associates
3. After the lawsuit was filed, I retained a registered process server, Swift Attorney
Service, to serve all defendants. I instructed Swift Attorney Service to attempt to serve
defendants Joseph Tse, Wendy Lun, and their law firm Lun and Associates at their law offices in
San Jose (1754 Technology Drive, Suite 133), and Newark (3900 Newpark Mall, Suite
10
205E),which they list with the California State Bar, and at addresses in Palo Alto (identified on
their law fiim's website). Attached hereto as Exhibit B are true and correct copies of the state
12
bar profile pages for Joseph Tse, Wendy Lun and defendants'ounsel Benjamin Charles Rand,
13
which I obtained from the California state bar website. Wendy Lun's profile identifies her
business address as 1754 Technology Drive, Suite 133, San Jose. This is the same business
15
address that Benjamin Charles Rand lists on his state bar profile. I visited this address to make
16
sure it was correct after the process server had trouble serving Ms. Lun and Mr. Tse at this
address. Suite 133 consists of a hallway and 5 doors, four of which have other business names
affixed to the front. The names Wendy I.un, Joseph Tse, and l,un & Associates do not appear on
any of the doors. One office door appears to have had a name plate removed from it (there are
still materials affixed to tlte door used to mount a name plate), as if to disguise the fact as to who
21 uses this interior office. There is no reception area, desks, secretarial stations or waiting area in
22 any of the common areas, which makes it difficult for a process server to leave the summons and
complaint with anyone in charge of the office.
24 4. In addition to having Swift Attorney Service attempt service on Tse, Lun and Lun
25 and Associates, I also provided Tse and Lun with the judicial council fomi for acknowledging
receipt of summons and the complaint, and mailed the same package to Joseph Tse, Wendy Lun
and Lun and Associates, on August 22, 2019. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct
copy of the email I sent to them. They never responded to this email nor to the packages
Cooke Dee ISO plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Quash/Case No, 19CV04461
containing these same materials that I mailed to their Newark office. After these efforts to serve
Tse and Lun at their business addresses did not succeed, I did online research to locate Tse and
Lun's residential address. Through this research, I discovered that they were husband and wife
and owned a house located at 1002 Cerrito Way, Palo Alto, California. I gave this address to
Swift Attorney Service to use for serving them with the summons and complaint.
5. Ultunately, Swift Atton&ey Se&3 ice was able to eft'ect substitute service on Tse
and Lun, on or about September 15, 2019 at 1002 Cerrito Way. Attached hereto as Exhibit D ar
true and correct copies of the proof of service, declarations of diligence, and certificates of
mailing prepared by Swift Attorney Service. As explained in the proof of sen ice, se&vice was
10
completed by leaving the summons and complaint at the front door of 1002 Cerrito Way, after
the process server observed an "Asian guy" who rushed into the house and unsuccessfully tried
12 Swift Attorney Service
to get his attention, and when this person refused to answer the doorbell.
13 1002 Cenito way, pursuant to the
then mailed copies of the summons and complaint to
procedure specified in Code of Civil Procedure Section 415.20.
15
B. Evidence that Joseph Tse and Wendy Lun and Defendants'ounsel Rand
Live at 1002 Cerrito Way, Palo Alto
6. After defendants tiled this motion to quash, 1did a records search at the Santa
&8
Clara County Clerk-Recorders'ffice to confirm that Joseph Tse and Wendy Lun did in fact ow
19 the house located at 1002 Cerrito Way, in Palo Alto and owned it at the time of the service in
'1
0
September 2019. Attached hereto as Exhibit E are true and correct certified copies of the
21 recorded deed for the property located at 1002 Cerrito Way.
22 7. These records show that Wendy Lun and Joseph Tse, husband and wife,
purchased the property in 2004 and then transferred title to this property to a family trust. I also
drove by the property, on Janua&y 9, 2020 and took pictures of the house and the cars parked in
25 the driveway (at just past 12 noon). Attached hereto as Exhibit F are true and correct copies of
26 the pictures that I took of the house and cars located at 1002 Cerrito Way on January 9. I then
had Swift Attorney Service obtain from the Department of Motor Vehicles the owner/registratio
information for the ears parked in the driveway, both when I visited the property on January 9,
Cooke Dee 180 plain&i&ps Opposition to Motion io &Jnash/Case No, 19CV04461
2020 and when Swift Attorney Seta ice served Tse and Lun on September 15, 2019. Attached
hereto as Exhibit G are true and copies of the DMV printouts. These printouts show that Wendy
Lun owns two of the cars parked in the driveway (the Mercedes and the Honda), that Benjamin
Charles Rand owns the Mazda Miata (present on January 9), and Samantha Rand owned the Jeep
that was present on September 15.
g. I also did online research on "Samantha Bautista" and Samantha Rand. I found a
Facebook account for one Smnantha Rand, which discloses that she has family members with th
last name of Bautista and that she married Benjamin Charles Rand in 201 8. Attached hereto as
Exhibit H are printouts from the Facebook pages of Samantha Rand and Benjamin Charles Rand.
10
From these Facebook pages, and the DMV records, I inferred that Benjamin Rand,
defendants'ounsel„
is married to Samantha 13autista, the declarant in this case, and that they also reside at
12
1002 Cerrito Way, along with Tse and Lun.
9. Regarding the process server's statement that he observed an "Asian guy" rushing
into the house at 1002 Cerrito Way when he approached the individual to serve him, it should be
noted that defendant Joseph Tse is of Asian ethnicity, at least based upon his photo on his law
16 firm's website. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a ttnte and correct copy of the pages from the
website tt tvt- Junlatv.ctznt, which contains a photo of attorney Joseph Tse.
IB
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
19
is true and correct. Executed this 13th day of January 2020, in San Mateo, California.
20
21 Q6 'a Q~W
Christopher C. Cooke
22
24
27
Cooke Deo 1$ 0 Plaintitps Opposition to Motion to Quash/Case No. 19CV04461
EXHIBIT A TO COOKE DECLARATION: COMPLAINT
CHRISTOPHER COOKE, CA Bar ¹142342
MURPHY COOKE KOBRICK LLP
177 Bovet Road, Suite 600
San Mateo, CA 94402
Email: ccooke@mckllp.com
Tek (650) 638-2370 Hertronl cally
FILED
rrcuuertc*I4umecuurryutSuunurur
rrysuuer
Attorneys for Plaintiff
8/1/2019
MEI-FANG LISA ZHANG
rr~u
oN
e
Oepetyr Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
10
MEJ-FANCi LISA ZHANG, Case Np ~ 1 9-CIV-04461
Plaintiff,
12
COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL
Vs.
13 INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE
ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF
BERNARD LEUNG; JOSEPH TSE; WENDY
FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF
LUN; LUN & ASSOCIATES; AND DOES 1-
CREDIT, NEGLIGENCK, AND
20, INCLUSIVE,
VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA
16
Defendants BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE
SECTION 17200
18
Plaintiff alleges for her Complaint as follows:
19
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Mei-Fang "Lisa" Zhang is an adult woman over the age of eighteen and,
21
at all times relevant to this complaint, was a resident of San Mateo County, California.
22
2. Defendant Bernard C. F. Leung ("Leung") is an adult male over the age of
eighteen and is and was at all times relevant to this complaint a resident of San Mateo County,
24
California. Leung holds a real estate broker's license issued by the Califorma Department of
Real Estate, license no. 01027052.
3. Defendant JOSEPH TSE ("TSE'*) is an adult male over the age of eighteen, and a
all relevant times has been, an attorney licensed by the California State Bar. TSE, at all relevant
28
COMI'LAINT FOR INTENTIONAI, INTFRFERENCK WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF I"IDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGI.IGENCK, AND
VIOI.ATIONSOF, CAI.IFORNIA RUSINKSS a I ROFKSSIONS CODE SECTION I72OO-I-
times, has lived and worked in in Alameda County, California, and has practiced law with the
law fum LUN & ASSOCIATES.
4. Defendant%ENDY LUN ('*LUN") is an adult female over the age of eighteen,
and at all relevant times has been, an attorney licensed by the California State Bar. LUN is the
founding partner of the law finn LUN & ASSOCIA'I'ES, which has offices in Newark, San Jose
and Palo Alto.
5. Defendant LUN & ASSOCIATES ("LUN ASSOCIATES" ), form of entity
unknown, is and at all relevant times has been a law firm with offices in Fremoiit and Palo Alto,
California. At all relevant times, TSE worked for LUN ASSOCIATES as an attorney and acted
10
on behalf when he engaged in the actions described herein. LUN is a partner of TSE and
jointly and severally responsible for his actions and inactions described herein.
12
6. Plaintiff does not know tlie tme names and capacities of Defendants Does I
through 20, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will
14
amend this complaint when the true names and capacities of said Defendants are ascertained.
15
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16
7, Jmdsdiction in this court is proper because the amount in controversy exceeds
$ 25,000 and therefore is within the unlimited civil jurisdiction of this court.
8. Venue is proper in San Mateo county under Califonua Code of Civil Procedure
Sections 395(a) and 395.5 because one or more defendants reside in San Mateo County at the
commencement of this action, defendants'onduct that is the subject of this complaint took
21
place in San Mateo County, and defendants'iability arose in San Mateo County.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
23 This complaint arises from two
9, Plaintiff was formerly the girlfidend of LEUNG,
24
distinct, instances of tortious conduct by LEUNO in which he took advantage of plaintiff's irust
25
and confidence in him. The first instance arose fiom plaintiff's purchase of a single-family
residence in Burlingame, California and her recent sale of that residence. The second concerns a
28
COMPI.AINT FOR INTKNTIONAI. INTKRFFRFNCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND
VIOI,ATIONS OF, CALIFORN IA BUSINESS k PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -2-
bankruptcy petition filed in December 2014 by TSE and LUN on insnuctions received from LE
but filed in Plaintiff's name.
A. BERNARD LEUNG'S FRAUDULENT GRANT DEED AND
INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY SALE
10. ln or about December 2012, LEUNG acted as a real estate broker to assist
ZHANO in purchasing a single-family residence located on 3040 Arguello Drive, Burlingame
California (the "Burlingame Property" ) from a Ted and Normita Pascual. LEUNG completed
the standard form California Residential Purchase Agreement for this property sale, identifying
ZHANG as the buyer and the Pascuals as the seller, for a purchase price of $ 1,550,000, which
10
plaintiff and the Pascuals both signed on or about December 26, 2012. LEUNG did not identify
himself'as acting as a real estate. broker for either the buyer (Ms. Zhang) or the sellers on the
12
Residential Purchase Agreement, did not open an escrow for this transaction, aud did not use a
13
title company to assist with sales transaction or to transfer title.
14
11. Two days later, on December 28, 2012, LEUNG also completed an California
Residential Purchase Agreement for the same Burlingiune Property, this time however,
identifying his brother Joseph C.M, Leung, as the buyer, the Pascuals as the sellers, and for a
purchase price of $ 1,470,000---exactly $ 80,000 lower than Ms, Zhang's contract— - which Josep
Leung and the Pascuals both apparently also signed. LEUNO once again did not identify himsel
19
as acting as a real estate broker for either the buyer or the sellers on the contract, did not open an
20
escrow for the transaction, and did not use a title company to assist with the sale or transfer of
21
title. Instead, and unknown to plaintiff at that time, LEUNG prepared a "Grant Deed" by which
22
the Pascuals purported to convey all interest in the Burlingame Property to Plaintiff Mei-Fang
23
Lisa Zhang and Joseph C.M, Leung "as husband and wife," even though they were not and had
never been married and never held themselves out as "husband and wife." LEUNG, however,
23
did not record this Grant Deed.
12. Although there were two Residential Purchase Agreements prepared and execute
for the Burlingame Property, neither Plaintiff nor Joseph C. M. Leung closed on the sale of the
COMPI,AINT FOR INTENTIONAI. INTERFKRFNCE VVITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGF., BREACH Oli FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGI.IGENCK, AND
VIOI.ATIONS Ol", CALIl'ORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SFCTION 17200-3-
Burlingame Property. Instead, plaintiff assumed all pre-existing financial obligations for the
Burlingame Property from the Pascuals, and made all mortgage payments, and paid all property
taxes and insurance due with respect to the Burlingarne Property instead of the Pascuals.
13. At some tiiue during 2016, LEUNG gave Plaintiff the grant deed that he had
obtained from the Pascuals. Plairitiff did not record this grant deed howevel, because she notice
that it improperly identified the owners of the property as herself and Joseph C. M. Leung as
"husband and wife" and she did not want (nor had she agreed) to share title to the Burlingame
Property with Joseph C. M. Leung.
14. In or about December 2018, plaintiff received an offer to sell the Burlingame
10
Property to another family. During the closing, the title company asked the Pascuals for a
seller's affidavit to confirm that they had in fact previously sold the Burlingame Propeity to
12
plaintiff, The Pascuals, acting on instructions from LEUNCi, refused to continn the validity of
13
Plaintiff s grant deed vesting title in the Burlingame Property in her name and the name of her
son, because the copy of the grant deed they signed and had provided to LEUNG vested title in
15
Plaintiff and Joseph Leung. Defendant LEUNG claimed to the title company that plaintiff owed
Joseph Leung $ 80,000 on an original $ 110,000 loan that Joseph had previously made to plaintiff
to assist her in buying the Burlingame Property.
18 15. In or about December 2018 and again in January 2019, LEUNG advised the title
19
company and plaintiff that he refused to have Joseph remove his claim for title to the Burlingam
Properly, and, upon information and belief, LEUNG instructed the Pascuals not to provide the
21 seller*s affidavit confuming that they had sold the Burlingame Property to Plaintiff, unless
22 Plaintiff wired $ 80,000 from the escrow estabhshed for the sale of the Burlingame Property to a
23 bank account in China puiportedly belonging to his brother. Not wishing to lose the buyer's offe
24 to purchase the Burlingame Property, plaintiff acceded to LEIJNG's demands so that she could
'15
sell the Burlingame Property before the buyers'inancial expired.
27
COMPI.AINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCF. WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BRFACB OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGI.IGKNCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CAI.IFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS COIlE SECTION 172UO-4-
16. LEUNG's story about his brother's loan to plaintiff was false. His brother Joseph
C. M. Leung did not lend any sum to plaintiff for purchase of the Burlingame Property and was
not entitled to receive any sum from the sale of the Burlingame Property.
B. BERNARD LEUNG'S FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY FILING IN
PLAINTIIT'S NAME
17. Defendant LEUNG was living with plaintiff at house that she rented in Millbrae,
California, in 2013 and 2014. While Plaintiff was away in China during December 2014
renewing a visa, an eviction proceeding was conunenced against her. LEUNG, who had no othe
residence at the time, contacted and hired defendant TSE, an attorney with LUN ASSOCIATES,
10
to prepare and file a bankruptcy to stay the eviction proceedings against Plaintiff and against
him„as an occupant of the same Millbrae residence. However, LEUNG did not file the
12
proceedings in his name. Rather, he retained LUN ASSOCIATES purportedly on behalf of
13
Plaintiff, to file a bankruptcy petition in her name. He represented to TSE and LUN
ASSOCIATES that plaintiff had authorized him to file such proceedings on her behalf, while she
15
was away in China.
16
18. LEUNG sent emails to TSE and LUN ASSOCIATES in Plaiutiff's name, without
her permission or knowledge, to provide authorization to file the bankruptcy petition in
Plaintiff's natue.
19
19. On or about December 15, 2014, TSE, on behalf of LUN ASSOCIATES filed a
20
voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7 of the Title 11, United States Code, in Plaintiff s
21
name with the United States Bankruptcy Cotut for the Not2hem District of California, case
22
number 14-31796. In Exhibit B of the petition, TSE aud LUN represented to the Bankruptcy
Court that they were Plaintiff" s attorneys, and they were authorized to tile this petition on
24
plaintiff" s behalf, and that they had explained the relief available to her under each chapter of the
25
bankruptcy code, and that they had delivered to her the notice required by 11 U.S.C. Section
26
342(b) (this notice explains to individuals different aspects of Chapter 7, Chapter 11, Chapter 12
and Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code). They also submitted on her behalf a Certificate of
COMPI.AINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WiTH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGI.ICENCE, AND
VIOI.ATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA RUSIN'KSS & PROFESSIONS COD F. SECTION 17200-5-
Counseling, purportedly digitally signed by plaintiff, in which plaintiff represented that she had
received the required credit counseling briefing. In submitting the petition and the Certificate of
Counseling using the federal bankjuptcy court's e-filing system, TSE represented, to the United
States Bankruptcy Court that he had plaintiff's consent to submit and sign these documents on
her behalf.
20. Plaintiff never authorized LEUNO to hire TSE, I,UN or LUN ASSOCIATES to
file the bankruptcy petition on her behalf, nor did she consent to having TSE, LUN or LUN
ASSOCIATES file such a petition on her behalf nor did she consent to TSE, LUN, or LUN
ASSOCIATES to submit a digitally signed bankruptcy petition or a Certificate of Counseling for
10
her. And, she did not know that the bankruptcy petition had been filed. TSE, LUN, or LUN
ASSOCIATES never withdrew as plaintiff's counsel and never terminated their law firm's
12
representation of plaintiff.
13
21. LEUNG, TSE, LUN and LUN ASSOCIATES's filing of the bankruptcy petition
14
in plaintiff's name has caused, and continues to cause, her to suffer substantial damages. Plaintif
15
has been denied credit because the petition creates the false impression that Plaintiff is a poor
16
credit risk.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic -Against Defendant Leung)
19
22. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 16
20
of this Complaint as though fully alleged herein.
21
23. Plaintiff entered into Residential Property Agreement regarding the Burlingame
22
Property with prospective buyers in or about December 2018.
24. Defendant LEUNO was aware of this Residential Property Agreement and was
24
also aware of the fact that the title company required the previous owners, the Pascuals, to
25
submit a Sellers'ffidavit to confirm that Plaintiff and her son held title to the Burlingame
Property before the title company would issue tide insurance in favor of the prospective buyers.
28
COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGI.IGKNCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CAI.IFORNIA BUSINESS 8c PROITt.SSIONS CODE SFCTION 17200 -6-
25. By doing the acts specified above, LEUNG acted wrongfully towards plaintiff,
with the intention of preventing plaintiff from selling the Burlingame Property unless she paid
his brother $ 80,000, a sum to which neither he nor his brother was entitled.
26. As a result of defendant LEUNG's wrongful conduct, plaintiff suffered harm and
damages, in an amount to be proved at trial.
27. Defendant LEUNG's conduct to plaintiff was oppressive, fraudulent and
malicious, justifying an award of exemplary damages against him to deter him fiom engaging
such wrongful conduct in the future, in an amount to be set by the trier of fact.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
10
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty against LEUNG)
28. Plaintiff hereby mcorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16
12
of this complaint as though fully alleged herein.
13
29. In connection with Plaintiff s purchase of the Burlingame Property in December
14
2012, LEUNG acted as Plaintiff's real estate agent and plaintiff placed her trust and confidence
15
in him that he would serve and protect her interests in the transaction.
16
30. In reality, as described above, and unknown to plaintiff at that time, Defendant
LEI JNG planned to earn a secret commission on the plaintiff's purchase of the BURLINGAME
PROPERTY, by arranging to have his brother also purportedly purchase the same property for
$ 80,000 less than plaintiff, and to secure payment of this commission, by preparing and having
20
the Pascuals issue a grant deed that named his brother as a co-owner of the BURLINGAME
21
PROPERTY along with Plaintiff.
22
31. In doing so, LEUNG breached his fiduciary obligations to Plaintiff of full and
complete disclosure to her, and of loyalty, including by failing to disclose the existence of the
Residential Purchase Agreement signed by his brother and thc Pascuals for the same property,
25
failing to disclose his intention to earn a secret profit off of Plaintiff when Plaintiff later sold the
BURL1NGAME PROPERTY, and the existence of the second Residential Purchase Agreement
signed by the Pascuals and his brother only two days after Plaintiff entered into her contract with
28
COMPLAINT FOR INTFNTIONAL INTERFERKNCK WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF Fl'DUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGI.IGENCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CAI,II ORNIA BUSINESS & PROI'ESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -7-
the Pascuals for the same property and later by misrepresenting to Plaintiff, her broker and the
title company in December 2018 that his brother was owed $ 80,000 on a loan he had made to
3
Plaintiff to help her purchase the BURLINGAME PROPERTY.
32. Plaintiff was not aware of, and did not know about, the existence of Plaintiff s
5
intention to earn a secrel. profit fiom her purchase of the BUR.LlNGAME PROPERTY or thc
6
existence of the second Residential Purchase Agreement signed by the Pascuals and Ioseph
7
Leung in December 2012 concerning the BURLINGAME PROPERTY until late December
8
2018, when her attorney obtained a copy of it from the Pascuals.
33. As a result of Defendant Leung's conduct, Plaintiff has been damaged in an
10
amount to be determined at trial by the trier of fact.
34, Defendant LEUNG's conduct to plaintiff was oppressive, fraudulent and
12
malicious, justifying an award of exemplary damages against him to deter him from engaging
13
such wrongful conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Defamation of Credit Against LEUNG, TSK, LUN and LUN ASSOCIATES)
16
35. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9
and 17 through 21 of this Complaint as though fully alleged herein.
36. By filing a bankruptcy petition in Plaintiff's name but without her consent,
19
defendants LEUNG, TSE, LUN, and LUN ASSOCIATES made a false and disparaging remark
20
concerning plaintiff s credit, which was unprivileged and which was published about her to third
21
parties, such as credit repoiting agencies.
22
37. As a result of defendants'onduct, plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be
23
deteimine at trial by the tider of fact. Defendant LEUNG's conduct to plaintiff was oppressive,
24
fraudulent and malicious, justifying an award of exemplary damages against him to deter him
25
from engaging such wrongful conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by the trier o
26
fact.
27
COMPLAINT FOR INTKNTIONAI. INTERFERENCK WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUT Y, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIG ENCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OI; CAI.IFORNIA BUSINESS A PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -8-
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
negligence Against TSE, LUN, LUN ASSOCIATES)
38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1through 9
and 17 through 21 of this Complaint as though fully alleged herein.
39. By filing a petition in the United States Bankruptcy Couit on behalf of plaintiff o
December 2014, and continuing to represent plaintiff in that case until the action was dismissed
in 2015, TSE and LUN entered into a lawyer-client relationship with plaintiff.
40. By failing to confirm by telephone or in person with plaintiff that she, in fact, had
authorized LUN and TSE to file a bankruptcy petition on her behalf and that she had in fact
10
consented to TSE's filing the petition and certificate of counseling under her purported signature
TSE and LUN breached the duty of care that they as attorneys owed to Plaintiff.
12
41. As a result of TSE and I.UN's negligence, plaintiff suffered damages, and
13
continues to suffer damages, in an amount to be deteimined at trial by the trier of fact.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Claim for Violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200
16
against all Defendants)
42. Plaintiff hereby incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs I through 40 ol
this Complaint as though fully alleged herein.
19
43. By doing the acts complained of herein, defendants and each of them engaged in
20
unlawful, unfair or fiaudulent business act or practices, including fraud on the court, defatnation
of credit, and identity theft in violation of federal and California law.
22
44. Plaintiff has been harmed by defendants'onduct and is therefore entitled to seek
restitution and injunctive relief t'rom each defendant.
25
COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERKNCK WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGI.IGENCK, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS~ A PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200-9-
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
A. On the First and Second Causes of Action, she requests damages according to
proof at trial in an amount in excess of $ 25,000, and prejudgment interest on all smns due, and
punitive damages from LEUNG;
B. On the Third Cause of Action, she requests damages according to proof at trial
in an amount in excess of $ 25,000, and prejudgment interest on all sums due, and punitive
damages from LEUNG, and damages according to proof at trial in an amount in excess of
$ 25,000, plus prejudgment interest, from TSE, LUN and LLIN ASSOCIATES.
D. On the Fourth Cause of Action, she requests damages according to proof at trial
in an amount in excess of $ 25,000, and prejudgment interest on all sums due, from TSE, LUN,
12
and LUN ASSOCIATES;
13
E. On the Fifth Cause of Action, she requests restitution and injunctive relief, plus
14
prejudgment interest and attorneys'ees on all sums due, from defendants LEUNG, TSE, LUN
and LUN ASSOCIATES;
16
H. On all causes of action, plaintiff requests costs of suit, including attorneys'ees
and costs; and
1. For such other and further relief as thc Court deems proper.
20
Dated: August I, 2019
MURPHY CO+~K BRICK LLP
22
23 CHRISTOPHER C. COOKE,
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
24 MEI FANCi I.ISA ZHANG
25
28
COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERKNCK WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH Oli FIDUCIARY DILTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NKGI.IGENCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SIICTION 17200-10-
EXHIBIT B TO COOKE DECLARATION: STATE BAR PROFILES
1/10/2020 Joseph Tse /t2! 9435 - Anomey Licensee Search
Joseph Tse I/219435
License Status: Active
Address: 'n 8 Associates, 3900 Newpark Ivlall Ste 205E, Newark, CA 94560
County Alameda County
Phone Number: (510) 792-7922
Fax Number (510)~792-7 1
Email: joseph(8lunlaw.corn
Law School: McGeorge SCL Univ of the Pacific; CA
Below you will find all changes of license status due to both non-disciplinary administrative matters and disciplinary
actions.
Date License Status Discipline Administrative Action
Present Active
6/4/2002 Admitted to The State Bar of California
Additional Information".
~ Fxplanation of licensee status
Explanation of disciplinary system
~ Explanation of disciplinary actions
~ Copies of official licensee discipline records are available upon request
CLA Sections: Family Law
Califom/a Lawyers Association (CLA) is an independent organization and is not part of The State Bar of California.
2020 The Stale Bar of California
members.calbar.cages/fal/Licensee/Detail/219433
1/10/2020 Wendy Lnn 9191091 - Attorney racensee Search
tg&& The State 83I of California
Wendy Lun ¹191591
License Status: Active
Address: Lun L Associates, 1754 Technology Dr Ste 133, San Jose, CA 95110-3837
County Santa Clara County
Phone Number (408) 903-9799
Fax Number Not Available
I-'mailwendylun.lawyerftt/gmatl corn
Law School LIC Davis SOL King Hail; Davis CA
Below you will find all changes of license status due to both non-disciplinary administrative matters and disciplinary
actions.
Date License Status Discipline Administrative Action
Present Active
1279/1997 Admitted to The State Bar of California
Additional Information:
~ Fxplanation of licensee status
~ Explanation of disciplinary system
~ Explanation of disciplinary actions
~ Copies of official licensee discipline records are available upon request
CLA Sections: None
California Lawyers Association (CLA) is an independent organization and is not part of The State Bar of California
2020 lhe State Bar of California
members.calbar.cases/fal/Licensee/Detail/191991
I./10/2020 Benjamin Charles Rand 4318284 - Anomey Licensee Search
g~l The State Bar of California
Benjamin Charles Rand ¹318284
License Status: Active
Address: Law Offices of Benjamin C. Rand, 1754 Technology Dr Ste 133, San Jose, CA 95110-3837
County: Santa Clara County
Phone Number: {650) 380-2607
Fax Number Not Available
Email brand335(F//yahoo.corn
Law School U of Sar/ Francisco SOL, San Fiancisco CA
Below you will find all changes of license status due to both non-disciplinary administrative matters and disciplinary
actions.
Date License Status Discipline Administrative Action
Present Active
1 2/5/201 7 Admitted to The State Bar of California
Additional Information:
~ Explanation of licensee status
Explanation of disciplinary system
~ Explanation of disciplinary actions
Copies of ofFicial licensee discipline records are available upon request
CLA Sections: None
California Lawyers Assoc/ation {CLA) is an independent organization and is not part of The State Bar of California.
Gc2020 The State Bar of California
memberscalbar.ca.sos/fal/Licensee/De/aiio18284
EXHIBIT C TO COOKE DECLARATION: 8/22
8/22 EMAIL TO TSE/LUN
1/10/2020 Murphy Cooke Kobfick LLP Mail
rZhangv Leung, Tsc) Lun San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 19~CIV—4461
ct al.
e» i
Christopher Cooke
E E
Zhang v Leung, Tse, Lun et al, San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 19-CIV-
Preview
1/13/2020 MURPHY COOKE KOBRICK LLP CHRISTOPHER C. COOKE (CA Bar f/142342) 177 Bovet Road, Suite 600 San Mateo, CA 94402 Email: ccooke mckllp.corn Tel: (650) 638-2370 Attorneys for Plaintiff MFI-FANG LISA ZHANG SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 12 MEI-FANG I..ISA ZHANG, Case No.: 19-CV-04461 13 Plaintiff, 14 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER vs. COOKE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S 15 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS'OTION 16 BERNARD C. LEUNG, IOSEPH TSE, TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS WENDY LUN, LUN Ec ASSOCIATES, AND DOES I I THROI.JGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Date: lanuary 27, 2020 Time: 9 a,m. Defendants. Place: Law 68 Motion Dept.. 19 Complaint Filed: 8/I/2019 20 22 23 I, Christopher C. Cooke, derlare and state: 1. I am a member of the bar of the State of California and am counsel for plaintiff, 25 Mei-Fang Zhang, in this case. I make this declaration of my personal knowledge and, if called a 26 a witness, can and would testify competently to the facts set forth in this declaration. 2. I filed this lawsuit on behalf of plaintiff, Mei-Fang Lisa Zhang, on or about 28 August I, 2019. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Complaint. The Cooke Dec ISO Plaintiff s Opposition to Motion to 12nash/Case No. 19CV04461 lawsuit was filed after several months of communications between me and Joseph Tse about his reasons for filing the petition and his claims that he was authorized to file this action by Ms. Zhang. Therefore, by the time that I filed this lawsuit, on or about August I, I had already apprised Mr. Tse of my intention to file this lawsuit. A. Efforts to Serve Wendy I,un, Joseph Tse, and I. un & Associates 3. After the lawsuit was filed, I retained a registered process server, Swift Attorney Service, to serve all defendants. I instructed Swift Attorney Service to attempt to serve defendants Joseph Tse, Wendy Lun, and their law firm Lun and Associates at their law offices in San Jose (1754 Technology Drive, Suite 133), and Newark (3900 Newpark Mall, Suite 10 205E),which they list with the California State Bar, and at addresses in Palo Alto (identified on their law fiim's website). Attached hereto as Exhibit B are true and correct copies of the state 12 bar profile pages for Joseph Tse, Wendy Lun and defendants'ounsel Benjamin Charles Rand, 13 which I obtained from the California state bar website. Wendy Lun's profile identifies her business address as 1754 Technology Drive, Suite 133, San Jose. This is the same business 15 address that Benjamin Charles Rand lists on his state bar profile. I visited this address to make 16 sure it was correct after the process server had trouble serving Ms. Lun and Mr. Tse at this address. Suite 133 consists of a hallway and 5 doors, four of which have other business names affixed to the front. The names Wendy I.un, Joseph Tse, and l,un & Associates do not appear on any of the doors. One office door appears to have had a name plate removed from it (there are still materials affixed to tlte door used to mount a name plate), as if to disguise the fact as to who 21 uses this interior office. There is no reception area, desks, secretarial stations or waiting area in 22 any of the common areas, which makes it difficult for a process server to leave the summons and complaint with anyone in charge of the office. 24 4. In addition to having Swift Attorney Service attempt service on Tse, Lun and Lun 25 and Associates, I also provided Tse and Lun with the judicial council fomi for acknowledging receipt of summons and the complaint, and mailed the same package to Joseph Tse, Wendy Lun and Lun and Associates, on August 22, 2019. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the email I sent to them. They never responded to this email nor to the packages Cooke Dee ISO plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Quash/Case No, 19CV04461 containing these same materials that I mailed to their Newark office. After these efforts to serve Tse and Lun at their business addresses did not succeed, I did online research to locate Tse and Lun's residential address. Through this research, I discovered that they were husband and wife and owned a house located at 1002 Cerrito Way, Palo Alto, California. I gave this address to Swift Attorney Service to use for serving them with the summons and complaint. 5. Ultunately, Swift Atton&ey Se&3 ice was able to eft'ect substitute service on Tse and Lun, on or about September 15, 2019 at 1002 Cerrito Way. Attached hereto as Exhibit D ar true and correct copies of the proof of service, declarations of diligence, and certificates of mailing prepared by Swift Attorney Service. As explained in the proof of sen ice, se&vice was 10 completed by leaving the summons and complaint at the front door of 1002 Cerrito Way, after the process server observed an "Asian guy" who rushed into the house and unsuccessfully tried 12 Swift Attorney Service to get his attention, and when this person refused to answer the doorbell. 13 1002 Cenito way, pursuant to the then mailed copies of the summons and complaint to procedure specified in Code of Civil Procedure Section 415.20. 15 B. Evidence that Joseph Tse and Wendy Lun and Defendants'ounsel Rand Live at 1002 Cerrito Way, Palo Alto 6. After defendants tiled this motion to quash, 1did a records search at the Santa &8 Clara County Clerk-Recorders'ffice to confirm that Joseph Tse and Wendy Lun did in fact ow 19 the house located at 1002 Cerrito Way, in Palo Alto and owned it at the time of the service in '1 0 September 2019. Attached hereto as Exhibit E are true and correct certified copies of the 21 recorded deed for the property located at 1002 Cerrito Way. 22 7. These records show that Wendy Lun and Joseph Tse, husband and wife, purchased the property in 2004 and then transferred title to this property to a family trust. I also drove by the property, on Janua&y 9, 2020 and took pictures of the house and the cars parked in 25 the driveway (at just past 12 noon). Attached hereto as Exhibit F are true and correct copies of 26 the pictures that I took of the house and cars located at 1002 Cerrito Way on January 9. I then had Swift Attorney Service obtain from the Department of Motor Vehicles the owner/registratio information for the ears parked in the driveway, both when I visited the property on January 9, Cooke Dee 180 plain&i&ps Opposition to Motion io &Jnash/Case No, 19CV04461 2020 and when Swift Attorney Seta ice served Tse and Lun on September 15, 2019. Attached hereto as Exhibit G are true and copies of the DMV printouts. These printouts show that Wendy Lun owns two of the cars parked in the driveway (the Mercedes and the Honda), that Benjamin Charles Rand owns the Mazda Miata (present on January 9), and Samantha Rand owned the Jeep that was present on September 15. g. I also did online research on "Samantha Bautista" and Samantha Rand. I found a Facebook account for one Smnantha Rand, which discloses that she has family members with th last name of Bautista and that she married Benjamin Charles Rand in 201 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit H are printouts from the Facebook pages of Samantha Rand and Benjamin Charles Rand. 10 From these Facebook pages, and the DMV records, I inferred that Benjamin Rand, defendants'ounsel„ is married to Samantha 13autista, the declarant in this case, and that they also reside at 12 1002 Cerrito Way, along with Tse and Lun. 9. Regarding the process server's statement that he observed an "Asian guy" rushing into the house at 1002 Cerrito Way when he approached the individual to serve him, it should be noted that defendant Joseph Tse is of Asian ethnicity, at least based upon his photo on his law 16 firm's website. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a ttnte and correct copy of the pages from the website tt tvt- Junlatv.ctznt, which contains a photo of attorney Joseph Tse. IB I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 19 is true and correct. Executed this 13th day of January 2020, in San Mateo, California. 20 21 Q6 'a Q~W Christopher C. Cooke 22 24 27 Cooke Deo 1$ 0 Plaintitps Opposition to Motion to Quash/Case No. 19CV04461 EXHIBIT A TO COOKE DECLARATION: COMPLAINT CHRISTOPHER COOKE, CA Bar ¹142342 MURPHY COOKE KOBRICK LLP 177 Bovet Road, Suite 600 San Mateo, CA 94402 Email: ccooke@mckllp.com Tek (650) 638-2370 Hertronl cally FILED rrcuuertc*I4umecuurryutSuunurur rrysuuer Attorneys for Plaintiff 8/1/2019 MEI-FANG LISA ZHANG rr~u oN e Oepetyr Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 10 MEJ-FANCi LISA ZHANG, Case Np ~ 1 9-CIV-04461 Plaintiff, 12 COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL Vs. 13 INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF BERNARD LEUNG; JOSEPH TSE; WENDY FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF LUN; LUN & ASSOCIATES; AND DOES 1- CREDIT, NEGLIGENCK, AND 20, INCLUSIVE, VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA 16 Defendants BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 18 Plaintiff alleges for her Complaint as follows: 19 THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Mei-Fang "Lisa" Zhang is an adult woman over the age of eighteen and, 21 at all times relevant to this complaint, was a resident of San Mateo County, California. 22 2. Defendant Bernard C. F. Leung ("Leung") is an adult male over the age of eighteen and is and was at all times relevant to this complaint a resident of San Mateo County, 24 California. Leung holds a real estate broker's license issued by the Califorma Department of Real Estate, license no. 01027052. 3. Defendant JOSEPH TSE ("TSE'*) is an adult male over the age of eighteen, and a all relevant times has been, an attorney licensed by the California State Bar. TSE, at all relevant 28 COMI'LAINT FOR INTENTIONAI, INTFRFERENCK WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF I"IDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGI.IGENCK, AND VIOI.ATIONSOF, CAI.IFORNIA RUSINKSS a I ROFKSSIONS CODE SECTION I72OO-I- times, has lived and worked in in Alameda County, California, and has practiced law with the law fum LUN & ASSOCIATES. 4. Defendant%ENDY LUN ('*LUN") is an adult female over the age of eighteen, and at all relevant times has been, an attorney licensed by the California State Bar. LUN is the founding partner of the law finn LUN & ASSOCIA'I'ES, which has offices in Newark, San Jose and Palo Alto. 5. Defendant LUN & ASSOCIATES ("LUN ASSOCIATES" ), form of entity unknown, is and at all relevant times has been a law firm with offices in Fremoiit and Palo Alto, California. At all relevant times, TSE worked for LUN ASSOCIATES as an attorney and acted 10 on behalf when he engaged in the actions described herein. LUN is a partner of TSE and jointly and severally responsible for his actions and inactions described herein. 12 6. Plaintiff does not know tlie tme names and capacities of Defendants Does I through 20, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will 14 amend this complaint when the true names and capacities of said Defendants are ascertained. 15 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 16 7, Jmdsdiction in this court is proper because the amount in controversy exceeds $ 25,000 and therefore is within the unlimited civil jurisdiction of this court. 8. Venue is proper in San Mateo county under Califonua Code of Civil Procedure Sections 395(a) and 395.5 because one or more defendants reside in San Mateo County at the commencement of this action, defendants'onduct that is the subject of this complaint took 21 place in San Mateo County, and defendants'iability arose in San Mateo County. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 23 This complaint arises from two 9, Plaintiff was formerly the girlfidend of LEUNG, 24 distinct, instances of tortious conduct by LEUNO in which he took advantage of plaintiff's irust 25 and confidence in him. The first instance arose fiom plaintiff's purchase of a single-family residence in Burlingame, California and her recent sale of that residence. The second concerns a 28 COMPI.AINT FOR INTKNTIONAI. INTKRFFRFNCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOI,ATIONS OF, CALIFORN IA BUSINESS k PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -2- bankruptcy petition filed in December 2014 by TSE and LUN on insnuctions received from LE but filed in Plaintiff's name. A. BERNARD LEUNG'S FRAUDULENT GRANT DEED AND INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY SALE 10. ln or about December 2012, LEUNG acted as a real estate broker to assist ZHANO in purchasing a single-family residence located on 3040 Arguello Drive, Burlingame California (the "Burlingame Property" ) from a Ted and Normita Pascual. LEUNG completed the standard form California Residential Purchase Agreement for this property sale, identifying ZHANG as the buyer and the Pascuals as the seller, for a purchase price of $ 1,550,000, which 10 plaintiff and the Pascuals both signed on or about December 26, 2012. LEUNG did not identify himself'as acting as a real estate. broker for either the buyer (Ms. Zhang) or the sellers on the 12 Residential Purchase Agreement, did not open an escrow for this transaction, aud did not use a 13 title company to assist with sales transaction or to transfer title. 14 11. Two days later, on December 28, 2012, LEUNG also completed an California Residential Purchase Agreement for the same Burlingiune Property, this time however, identifying his brother Joseph C.M, Leung, as the buyer, the Pascuals as the sellers, and for a purchase price of $ 1,470,000---exactly $ 80,000 lower than Ms, Zhang's contract— - which Josep Leung and the Pascuals both apparently also signed. LEUNO once again did not identify himsel 19 as acting as a real estate broker for either the buyer or the sellers on the contract, did not open an 20 escrow for the transaction, and did not use a title company to assist with the sale or transfer of 21 title. Instead, and unknown to plaintiff at that time, LEUNG prepared a "Grant Deed" by which 22 the Pascuals purported to convey all interest in the Burlingame Property to Plaintiff Mei-Fang 23 Lisa Zhang and Joseph C.M, Leung "as husband and wife," even though they were not and had never been married and never held themselves out as "husband and wife." LEUNG, however, 23 did not record this Grant Deed. 12. Although there were two Residential Purchase Agreements prepared and execute for the Burlingame Property, neither Plaintiff nor Joseph C. M. Leung closed on the sale of the COMPI,AINT FOR INTENTIONAI. INTERFKRFNCE VVITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGF., BREACH Oli FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGI.IGENCK, AND VIOI.ATIONS Ol", CALIl'ORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SFCTION 17200-3- Burlingame Property. Instead, plaintiff assumed all pre-existing financial obligations for the Burlingame Property from the Pascuals, and made all mortgage payments, and paid all property taxes and insurance due with respect to the Burlingarne Property instead of the Pascuals. 13. At some tiiue during 2016, LEUNG gave Plaintiff the grant deed that he had obtained from the Pascuals. Plairitiff did not record this grant deed howevel, because she notice that it improperly identified the owners of the property as herself and Joseph C. M. Leung as "husband and wife" and she did not want (nor had she agreed) to share title to the Burlingame Property with Joseph C. M. Leung. 14. In or about December 2018, plaintiff received an offer to sell the Burlingame 10 Property to another family. During the closing, the title company asked the Pascuals for a seller's affidavit to confirm that they had in fact previously sold the Burlingame Propeity to 12 plaintiff, The Pascuals, acting on instructions from LEUNCi, refused to continn the validity of 13 Plaintiff s grant deed vesting title in the Burlingame Property in her name and the name of her son, because the copy of the grant deed they signed and had provided to LEUNG vested title in 15 Plaintiff and Joseph Leung. Defendant LEUNG claimed to the title company that plaintiff owed Joseph Leung $ 80,000 on an original $ 110,000 loan that Joseph had previously made to plaintiff to assist her in buying the Burlingame Property. 18 15. In or about December 2018 and again in January 2019, LEUNG advised the title 19 company and plaintiff that he refused to have Joseph remove his claim for title to the Burlingam Properly, and, upon information and belief, LEUNG instructed the Pascuals not to provide the 21 seller*s affidavit confuming that they had sold the Burlingame Property to Plaintiff, unless 22 Plaintiff wired $ 80,000 from the escrow estabhshed for the sale of the Burlingame Property to a 23 bank account in China puiportedly belonging to his brother. Not wishing to lose the buyer's offe 24 to purchase the Burlingame Property, plaintiff acceded to LEIJNG's demands so that she could '15 sell the Burlingame Property before the buyers'inancial expired. 27 COMPI.AINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCF. WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BRFACB OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGI.IGKNCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CAI.IFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS COIlE SECTION 172UO-4- 16. LEUNG's story about his brother's loan to plaintiff was false. His brother Joseph C. M. Leung did not lend any sum to plaintiff for purchase of the Burlingame Property and was not entitled to receive any sum from the sale of the Burlingame Property. B. BERNARD LEUNG'S FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY FILING IN PLAINTIIT'S NAME 17. Defendant LEUNG was living with plaintiff at house that she rented in Millbrae, California, in 2013 and 2014. While Plaintiff was away in China during December 2014 renewing a visa, an eviction proceeding was conunenced against her. LEUNG, who had no othe residence at the time, contacted and hired defendant TSE, an attorney with LUN ASSOCIATES, 10 to prepare and file a bankruptcy to stay the eviction proceedings against Plaintiff and against him„as an occupant of the same Millbrae residence. However, LEUNG did not file the 12 proceedings in his name. Rather, he retained LUN ASSOCIATES purportedly on behalf of 13 Plaintiff, to file a bankruptcy petition in her name. He represented to TSE and LUN ASSOCIATES that plaintiff had authorized him to file such proceedings on her behalf, while she 15 was away in China. 16 18. LEUNG sent emails to TSE and LUN ASSOCIATES in Plaiutiff's name, without her permission or knowledge, to provide authorization to file the bankruptcy petition in Plaintiff's natue. 19 19. On or about December 15, 2014, TSE, on behalf of LUN ASSOCIATES filed a 20 voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7 of the Title 11, United States Code, in Plaintiff s 21 name with the United States Bankruptcy Cotut for the Not2hem District of California, case 22 number 14-31796. In Exhibit B of the petition, TSE aud LUN represented to the Bankruptcy Court that they were Plaintiff" s attorneys, and they were authorized to tile this petition on 24 plaintiff" s behalf, and that they had explained the relief available to her under each chapter of the 25 bankruptcy code, and that they had delivered to her the notice required by 11 U.S.C. Section 26 342(b) (this notice explains to individuals different aspects of Chapter 7, Chapter 11, Chapter 12 and Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code). They also submitted on her behalf a Certificate of COMPI.AINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WiTH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGI.ICENCE, AND VIOI.ATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA RUSIN'KSS & PROFESSIONS COD F. SECTION 17200-5- Counseling, purportedly digitally signed by plaintiff, in which plaintiff represented that she had received the required credit counseling briefing. In submitting the petition and the Certificate of Counseling using the federal bankjuptcy court's e-filing system, TSE represented, to the United States Bankruptcy Court that he had plaintiff's consent to submit and sign these documents on her behalf. 20. Plaintiff never authorized LEUNO to hire TSE, I,UN or LUN ASSOCIATES to file the bankruptcy petition on her behalf, nor did she consent to having TSE, LUN or LUN ASSOCIATES file such a petition on her behalf nor did she consent to TSE, LUN, or LUN ASSOCIATES to submit a digitally signed bankruptcy petition or a Certificate of Counseling for 10 her. And, she did not know that the bankruptcy petition had been filed. TSE, LUN, or LUN ASSOCIATES never withdrew as plaintiff's counsel and never terminated their law firm's 12 representation of plaintiff. 13 21. LEUNG, TSE, LUN and LUN ASSOCIATES's filing of the bankruptcy petition 14 in plaintiff's name has caused, and continues to cause, her to suffer substantial damages. Plaintif 15 has been denied credit because the petition creates the false impression that Plaintiff is a poor 16 credit risk. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic -Against Defendant Leung) 19 22. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 16 20 of this Complaint as though fully alleged herein. 21 23. Plaintiff entered into Residential Property Agreement regarding the Burlingame 22 Property with prospective buyers in or about December 2018. 24. Defendant LEUNO was aware of this Residential Property Agreement and was 24 also aware of the fact that the title company required the previous owners, the Pascuals, to 25 submit a Sellers'ffidavit to confirm that Plaintiff and her son held title to the Burlingame Property before the title company would issue tide insurance in favor of the prospective buyers. 28 COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGI.IGKNCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CAI.IFORNIA BUSINESS 8c PROITt.SSIONS CODE SFCTION 17200 -6- 25. By doing the acts specified above, LEUNG acted wrongfully towards plaintiff, with the intention of preventing plaintiff from selling the Burlingame Property unless she paid his brother $ 80,000, a sum to which neither he nor his brother was entitled. 26. As a result of defendant LEUNG's wrongful conduct, plaintiff suffered harm and damages, in an amount to be proved at trial. 27. Defendant LEUNG's conduct to plaintiff was oppressive, fraudulent and malicious, justifying an award of exemplary damages against him to deter him fiom engaging such wrongful conduct in the future, in an amount to be set by the trier of fact. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 10 (Breach of Fiduciary Duty against LEUNG) 28. Plaintiff hereby mcorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16 12 of this complaint as though fully alleged herein. 13 29. In connection with Plaintiff s purchase of the Burlingame Property in December 14 2012, LEUNG acted as Plaintiff's real estate agent and plaintiff placed her trust and confidence 15 in him that he would serve and protect her interests in the transaction. 16 30. In reality, as described above, and unknown to plaintiff at that time, Defendant LEI JNG planned to earn a secret commission on the plaintiff's purchase of the BURLINGAME PROPERTY, by arranging to have his brother also purportedly purchase the same property for $ 80,000 less than plaintiff, and to secure payment of this commission, by preparing and having 20 the Pascuals issue a grant deed that named his brother as a co-owner of the BURLINGAME 21 PROPERTY along with Plaintiff. 22 31. In doing so, LEUNG breached his fiduciary obligations to Plaintiff of full and complete disclosure to her, and of loyalty, including by failing to disclose the existence of the Residential Purchase Agreement signed by his brother and thc Pascuals for the same property, 25 failing to disclose his intention to earn a secret profit off of Plaintiff when Plaintiff later sold the BURL1NGAME PROPERTY, and the existence of the second Residential Purchase Agreement signed by the Pascuals and his brother only two days after Plaintiff entered into her contract with 28 COMPLAINT FOR INTFNTIONAL INTERFERKNCK WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF Fl'DUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGI.IGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CAI,II ORNIA BUSINESS & PROI'ESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -7- the Pascuals for the same property and later by misrepresenting to Plaintiff, her broker and the title company in December 2018 that his brother was owed $ 80,000 on a loan he had made to 3 Plaintiff to help her purchase the BURLINGAME PROPERTY. 32. Plaintiff was not aware of, and did not know about, the existence of Plaintiff s 5 intention to earn a secrel. profit fiom her purchase of the BUR.LlNGAME PROPERTY or thc 6 existence of the second Residential Purchase Agreement signed by the Pascuals and Ioseph 7 Leung in December 2012 concerning the BURLINGAME PROPERTY until late December 8 2018, when her attorney obtained a copy of it from the Pascuals. 33. As a result of Defendant Leung's conduct, Plaintiff has been damaged in an 10 amount to be determined at trial by the trier of fact. 34, Defendant LEUNG's conduct to plaintiff was oppressive, fraudulent and 12 malicious, justifying an award of exemplary damages against him to deter him from engaging 13 such wrongful conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation of Credit Against LEUNG, TSK, LUN and LUN ASSOCIATES) 16 35. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9 and 17 through 21 of this Complaint as though fully alleged herein. 36. By filing a bankruptcy petition in Plaintiff's name but without her consent, 19 defendants LEUNG, TSE, LUN, and LUN ASSOCIATES made a false and disparaging remark 20 concerning plaintiff s credit, which was unprivileged and which was published about her to third 21 parties, such as credit repoiting agencies. 22 37. As a result of defendants'onduct, plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be 23 deteimine at trial by the tider of fact. Defendant LEUNG's conduct to plaintiff was oppressive, 24 fraudulent and malicious, justifying an award of exemplary damages against him to deter him 25 from engaging such wrongful conduct in the future, in an amount to be determined by the trier o 26 fact. 27 COMPLAINT FOR INTKNTIONAI. INTERFERENCK WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUT Y, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIG ENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OI; CAI.IFORNIA BUSINESS A PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -8- FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION negligence Against TSE, LUN, LUN ASSOCIATES) 38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1through 9 and 17 through 21 of this Complaint as though fully alleged herein. 39. By filing a petition in the United States Bankruptcy Couit on behalf of plaintiff o December 2014, and continuing to represent plaintiff in that case until the action was dismissed in 2015, TSE and LUN entered into a lawyer-client relationship with plaintiff. 40. By failing to confirm by telephone or in person with plaintiff that she, in fact, had authorized LUN and TSE to file a bankruptcy petition on her behalf and that she had in fact 10 consented to TSE's filing the petition and certificate of counseling under her purported signature TSE and LUN breached the duty of care that they as attorneys owed to Plaintiff. 12 41. As a result of TSE and I.UN's negligence, plaintiff suffered damages, and 13 continues to suffer damages, in an amount to be deteimined at trial by the trier of fact. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Claim for Violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 16 against all Defendants) 42. Plaintiff hereby incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs I through 40 ol this Complaint as though fully alleged herein. 19 43. By doing the acts complained of herein, defendants and each of them engaged in 20 unlawful, unfair or fiaudulent business act or practices, including fraud on the court, defatnation of credit, and identity theft in violation of federal and California law. 22 44. Plaintiff has been harmed by defendants'onduct and is therefore entitled to seek restitution and injunctive relief t'rom each defendant. 25 COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERKNCK WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGI.IGENCK, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS~ A PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200-9- PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: A. On the First and Second Causes of Action, she requests damages according to proof at trial in an amount in excess of $ 25,000, and prejudgment interest on all smns due, and punitive damages from LEUNG; B. On the Third Cause of Action, she requests damages according to proof at trial in an amount in excess of $ 25,000, and prejudgment interest on all sums due, and punitive damages from LEUNG, and damages according to proof at trial in an amount in excess of $ 25,000, plus prejudgment interest, from TSE, LUN and LLIN ASSOCIATES. D. On the Fourth Cause of Action, she requests damages according to proof at trial in an amount in excess of $ 25,000, and prejudgment interest on all sums due, from TSE, LUN, 12 and LUN ASSOCIATES; 13 E. On the Fifth Cause of Action, she requests restitution and injunctive relief, plus 14 prejudgment interest and attorneys'ees on all sums due, from defendants LEUNG, TSE, LUN and LUN ASSOCIATES; 16 H. On all causes of action, plaintiff requests costs of suit, including attorneys'ees and costs; and 1. For such other and further relief as thc Court deems proper. 20 Dated: August I, 2019 MURPHY CO+~K BRICK LLP 22 23 CHRISTOPHER C. COOKE, Attorneys for Plaintiff, 24 MEI FANCi I.ISA ZHANG 25 28 COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERKNCK WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH Oli FIDUCIARY DILTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NKGI.IGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SIICTION 17200-10- EXHIBIT B TO COOKE DECLARATION: STATE BAR PROFILES 1/10/2020 Joseph Tse /t2! 9435 - Anomey Licensee Search Joseph Tse I/219435 License Status: Active Address: 'n 8 Associates, 3900 Newpark Ivlall Ste 205E, Newark, CA 94560 County Alameda County Phone Number: (510) 792-7922 Fax Number (510)~792-7 1 Email: joseph(8lunlaw.corn Law School: McGeorge SCL Univ of the Pacific; CA Below you will find all changes of license status due to both non-disciplinary administrative matters and disciplinary actions. Date License Status Discipline Administrative Action Present Active 6/4/2002 Admitted to The State Bar of California Additional Information". ~ Fxplanation of licensee status Explanation of disciplinary system ~ Explanation of disciplinary actions ~ Copies of official licensee discipline records are available upon request CLA Sections: Family Law Califom/a Lawyers Association (CLA) is an independent organization and is not part of The State Bar of California. 2020 The Stale Bar of California members.calbar.cages/fal/Licensee/Detail/219433 1/10/2020 Wendy Lnn 9191091 - Attorney racensee Search tg&& The State 83I of California Wendy Lun ¹191591 License Status: Active Address: Lun L Associates, 1754 Technology Dr Ste 133, San Jose, CA 95110-3837 County Santa Clara County Phone Number (408) 903-9799 Fax Number Not Available I-'mailwendylun.lawyerftt/gmatl corn Law School LIC Davis SOL King Hail; Davis CA Below you will find all changes of license status due to both non-disciplinary administrative matters and disciplinary actions. Date License Status Discipline Administrative Action Present Active 1279/1997 Admitted to The State Bar of California Additional Information: ~ Fxplanation of licensee status ~ Explanation of disciplinary system ~ Explanation of disciplinary actions ~ Copies of official licensee discipline records are available upon request CLA Sections: None California Lawyers Association (CLA) is an independent organization and is not part of The State Bar of California 2020 lhe State Bar of California members.calbar.cases/fal/Licensee/Detail/191991 I./10/2020 Benjamin Charles Rand 4318284 - Anomey Licensee Search g~l The State Bar of California Benjamin Charles Rand ¹318284 License Status: Active Address: Law Offices of Benjamin C. Rand, 1754 Technology Dr Ste 133, San Jose, CA 95110-3837 County: Santa Clara County Phone Number: {650) 380-2607 Fax Number Not Available Email brand335(F//yahoo.corn Law School U of Sar/ Francisco SOL, San Fiancisco CA Below you will find all changes of license status due to both non-disciplinary administrative matters and disciplinary actions. Date License Status Discipline Administrative Action Present Active 1 2/5/201 7 Admitted to The State Bar of California Additional Information: ~ Explanation of licensee status Explanation of disciplinary system ~ Explanation of disciplinary actions Copies of ofFicial licensee discipline records are available upon request CLA Sections: None California Lawyers Assoc/ation {CLA) is an independent organization and is not part of The State Bar of California. Gc2020 The State Bar of California memberscalbar.ca.sos/fal/Licensee/De/aiio18284 EXHIBIT C TO COOKE DECLARATION: 8/22 8/22 EMAIL TO TSE/LUN 1/10/2020 Murphy Cooke Kobfick LLP Mail rZhangv Leung, Tsc) Lun San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 19~CIV—4461 ct al. e» i Christopher Cooke E E Zhang v Leung, Tse, Lun et al, San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. 19-CIV-