Preview
Electrunically
CHRISTOPHER COOKE, CA Bar #142342
STEVEN R RUTH, CA Bar #146868 Supermr Cmrt cufEahfc-rnmrflnunry nfSan Maren-
b}-
MURPHY COOKE KOBRICK LLP cw 5/28/2020
177 Bovet Road, Suite 600 A “1 B
. .
B”
San Mateo, CA 94402 ’LEEPEJEEE'“
Email: ccooke@mckllp.com
Tel: (650) 638-2370
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MEI-FANG LISA ZHANG
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
11 MEI-FANG LISA ZHANG, Case N0.: 19-CV-04461
12 Plaintiff,
13
VS.
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
14
BERNARD CHI FAI LEUNG, AKA PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
15 BERNARD LEUNG; JOSEPH TSE; WENDY ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY
LUN; LUN & ASSOCIATES; AND DOES 1-
DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT,
16
20, INCLUSIVE, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF,
17
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS &
18
19 Plaintiff alleges for her Complaint as follows:
20 IHEBARIIES
21 1. Plaintiff Mei-Fang “Lisa” Zhang is an adult woman over the age 0f eighteen and,
22 at all times relevant t0 this complaint, was a resident 0f San Mateo County, California.
23 2. Bernard Chi Fai Leung, also known as Bernard Leung (“LEUNG”) was, when
24 this action was filed, an adult male over the age 0f eighteen and was at alltimes relevant t0 this
25 complaint a resident 0f San Mateo County, California and was named and served with summons
26 as a defendant in this action when it was filed 0n August 1, 2019. LEUNG held a real estate
27 broker’s license issued by the California Department 0f Real Estate, license n0. 01027052.
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -1-
LEUNG died, intestate, 0n 0r about October 18, 2019. Plaintiff filed a Petition for Letters of
Administration and for Authorization t0 Administer under the Independent Administration
Estates Act with the Probate Division 0f this Court 0n February 6, 2020, seeking t0 have herself,
as a creditor, be appointed as the personal representative 0f the Estate 0f Bernard Chi Fai Leung
(LEUNG ESTATE), which petition is stillpending and not ruled upon because 0f the shutdown
0f this Court due t0 the Coronavirus and the Orders 0f the Public Health Officer 0f San Mateo
County and the Chief Justice 0f the California Supreme Court. Plaintiff intends t0 submit her
claims against LEUNG t0 the personal representative 0f the LEUNG ESTATE if someone other
than plaintiff is named as the personal representative 0f LEUNG ESTATE and rejects her claims
10
against LEUNG ESTATE. Plaintiff will, by motion, seek leave 0f court pursuant t0 Code 0f
11
Civil Procedure Section 377.41 t0 amend this complaint t0 name this person as a defendant
12
herein in his 0r her capacity as the personal representative 0f the LEUNG ESTATE once he 0r
13
she is appointed by the Probate Court as the personal representative LEUNG ESTATE and
14
rejects Plaintiff’s claims against it.
15
3. Defendant JOSEPH TSE (“TSE”) isan adult male over the age 0f eighteen, and at
16
all relevant times has been, an attorney licensed by the California State Bar. TSE, at all relevant
17
times, has lived and worked in in Alameda County, California, and has practiced law with the
18
law firm LUN & ASSOCIATES.
19
4. Defendant WENDY LUN (“LUN”) is an adult female over the age 0f eighteen,
20
and at all relevant times has been, an attorney licensed by the California State Bar. LUN is the
21
founding partner of the law firm LUN & ASSOCIATES, which has offices in Newark, San Jose
22 and Palo Alto.
23 5. Defendant LUN & ASSOCIATES (“LUN ASSOCIATES”), form of entity
24 unknown, is and at all relevant times has been a law firm with offices in Newark and Palo Alto,
25 California. At all relevant times, TSE worked for LUN ASSOCIATES as an attorney and acted
26 0n itsbehalf with the actual 0r apparent authority t0 d0 so when he engaged in the actions
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -2-
described herein. LUN is a partner 0f TSE and jointly and severally responsible for his actions
and inactions described herein.
6. Plaintiff does not know the names and capacities 0f Defendants DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this
complaint when the true names and capacities 0f said Defendants are ascertained.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believe and, 0n that basis, alleges that at all times herein
mentioned, each 0f the Defendants were the agents, servants, employees, representatives,
officers, directors, fiduciaries, joint venturers, and/or predecessors 0r successors in interest 0f
each remaining Defendant herein, and in doing things herein alleged, were acting Within the
10
scope 0f their authority, with the permission, consent, 0r ratification 0f their Co-Defendants, and
11
each 0f them.
12
13
8. Jurisdiction in this court is proper because the amount in controversy exceeds
14
$25,000 and therefore is within the unlimited civil jurisdiction 0f this court.
15
9. Venue isproper in San Mateo county under California Code 0f Civil Procedure
16
Sections 395(a) and 395.5 because one 0r more defendants resided in San Mateo County at the
17
commencement 0f this action, defendants’ conduct that is the subj ect 0f this complaint took
18
place in San Mateo County, and defendants’ liability arose in San Mateo County.
19
GENERALALLEGAIIQNS
20
10. Plaintiff was formerly the girlfriend 0f BERNARD LEUNG. This complaint
21
arises from two distinct instances 0f tortious conduct by LEUNG in which he took advantage 0f
22
plaintiff’s trust and confidence in him. The first instance arose from plaintiff” s purchase 0f a
23
single-family residence in Burlingame, California and her recent sale 0f that residence. The
24
second concerns a bankruptcy petition filed in December 2014 by TSE, LUN and LUN
25
ASSOCIATES 0n instructions received solely from LEUNG but filed in Plaintiff’s name,
26
without her knowledge 0r consent.
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -3-
A. BERNARD LEUNG’S FRAUDULENT GRANT DEED AND
INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY SALE
11. In 0r about December 2012, LEUNG acted as a real estate broker t0 assist
ZHANG in purchasing a single-family residence located 0n 3040 Arguello Drive, Burlingame
California (the “Burlingame Property”) from 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 0f $1,550,000, which
plaintiff and the Pascuals both signed 0n 0r about December 26, 2012. LEUNG did not identify
himself as acting as a real estate broker for either the buyer (Ms. Zhang) 0r the sellers 0n the
10 Residential Purchase Agreement, did not open an escrow for this transaction, and did not use a
11 titlecompany t0 assist with sales transaction 0r t0 transfer title.
12 12. Two days later,0n December 28, 2012, LEUNG also completed an California
13 Residential Purchase Agreement for the same Burlingame Property, this time, however,
14 identifying his brother Joseph C.M, Leung, as the buyer, the Pascuals as the sellers, and for a
15 purchase price 0f $1,470,000—exact1y $80,000 lower than Ms. Zhang’s contract—which Joseph
16 Leung and the Pascuals apparently also signed. LEUNG once again did not identify himself as
17 acting as a real estate broker for either the buyer 0r the sellers 0n the contract, did not open an
18 escrow for the transaction, and did not use a titlecompany t0 assist with the sale 0r transfer 0f
19 title. Instead, and unknown t0 plaintiff at that time, LEUNG prepared a “Grant Deed” by which
20 the Pascuals purported t0 convey all interest in the Burlingame Property to Plaintiff Mei-Fang
21 Lisa Zhang and Joseph C.M. Leung “as husband and wife,” even though they were not and had
22 never been married and never held themselves out as “husband and wife.” LEUNG, however,
23 did not record this Grant Deed.
24 13. Although there were two Residential Purchase Agreements prepared and executed
25 for the Burlingame Property, neither Plaintiff nor Joseph C. M. Leung closed 0n the sale 0f the
26 Burlingame Property. Instead, plaintiff assumed all pre-existing financial obligations for the
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -4-
Burlingame Property from the Pascuals, and made all mortgage payments, and paid all property
taxes and insurance due with respect t0 the Burlingame Property instead 0f the Pascuals.
14. At some time during 2016, LEUNG gave Plaintiff the grant deed that he had
obtained from the Pascuals. Plaintiff did not record this grant deed however, because she noticed
that it improperly identified the owners 0f the property as herself and Joseph C. M. Leung as
“husband and wife” and she did not want (nor had she agreed) t0 share title t0 the Burlingame
Property with Joseph C. M. Leung.
15. In 0r about December 201 8, plaintiff received an offer to sell the Burlingame
Property to another family. During the closing, the title company asked the Pascuals for a
10
seller’s affidavit t0 confirm that they had in fact previously sold the Burlingame Property t0
11
plaintiff. The Pascuals, acting 0n instructions from LEUNG, refused t0 confirm the validity 0f
12
Plaintiff” s grant deed vesting title in the Burlingame Property in her name and the name 0f her
13
son, because the copy 0f the grant deed they signed and had provided t0 LEUNG vested title in
14
Plaintiff and Joseph Leung. Defendant LEUNG claimed t0 the title company that plaintiff owed
15
Joseph Leung $80,000 0n an original $1 10,000 loan that Joseph had previously made t0 plaintiff
16
t0 assist her in buying the Burlingame Property.
17
16. In 0r about December 201 8 and again in January 2019, LEUNG advised the title
18
company and plaintiff that he refused t0 have Joseph remove his claim for titlet0 the Burlingame
19
Property, and, upon information and belief, LEUNG instructed the Pascuals not t0 provide the
20 seller’s affidavit confirming that they had sold the Burlingame Property to Plaintiff, unless
21
Plaintiff wired $80,000 from the escrow established for the sale 0f the Burlingame Property to a
22 bank account in China purportedly belonging t0 his brother. Not wishing t0 lose the buyer’s offer
23 to purchase the Burlingame Property, plaintiff acceded t0 LEUNG’S demands so that she could
24 sell the Burlingame Property before the buyers’ financial expired.
25 17. LEUNG’S story about his brother’s loan t0 plaintiff was false. His brother Joseph
26 C. M. Leung did not lend any sum t0 plaintiff for purchase 0f the Burlingame Property and was
27 not entitled t0 receive any sum from the sale 0f the Burlingame Property.
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -5-
B. BERNARD LEUNG’S FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY FILING IN
PLAINTIFF’S NAME
18. 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 commenced against her. LEUNG, who had n0 other residence at the
time, contacted and hired defendant TSE, an attorney with LUN ASSOCIATES, t0 prepare and
file a bankruptcy t0 stay the eviction proceedings against Plaintiff and against him, as an
occupant 0f the same Millbrae residence. However, LEUNG did not file the proceedings in his
name. Rather, he retained TSE 0f the law firm LUN ASSOCIATES purportedly 0n behalf 0f
10 Plaintiff, to file a bankruptcy petition in her name. Plaintiff is informed and believes that
11 LEUNG represented t0 TSE and LUN ASSOCIATES that plaintiff had authorized him to file
12 such proceedings 0n her behalf, while she was away in China. Plaintiff, however, did not
13 authorize LEUNG t0 file a bankruptcy petition 0n her behalf.
14 19. LEUNG sent emails t0 TSE and LUN ASSOCIATES in Plaintiff” s name, without
15 her permission 0r knowledge, t0 provide authorization t0 file the bankruptcy petition in
16 Plaintiff’s name. LEUNG used a Gmail account that he established in Plaintiff’s name t0 send
17 these emails t0 TSE and LUN ASSOCIATES. On 0r about December 15, 2014, TSE, on behalf
18 0f LUN ASSOCIATES filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7 0f the Title 11,
19 United States Code, in Plaintiff” sname with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
20 District 0f California, case number 14-3 1796. In Exhibit B 0f the petition, TSE and LUN
21 represented t0 the Bankruptcy Court that they were Plaintiff” s attorneys, and they were
22 authorized t0 file this petition 0n plaintiff” s behalf, and that they had explained the relief
23 available t0 her under each chapter 0f the bankruptcy code, and that they had delivered t0 her the
24 notice required by 11 U.S.C. Section 342(b) (this notice explains t0 individuals different aspects
25 0f Chapter 7, Chapter 11, Chapter 12 and Chapter 13 0f the Bankruptcy Code). They also
26 submitted 0n her behalf a Certificate 0f Counseling, purportedly digitally signed by plaintiff, in
27 which plaintiff represented that she had received the required credit counseling briefing. In
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -6-
submitting the petition and the Certificate 0f Counseling using the federal bankruptcy court’s e-
filing system, TSE represented, t0 the United States Bankruptcy Court that he had plaintiff’s
consent t0 submit and sign these documents 0n her behalf.
20. TSE’S and LUN ASSOCIATES’ representations t0 the United States Bankruptcy
Court that they were authorized by plaintiff t0 file the bankruptcy petition 0n her behalf, that
they had explained the relief available t0 her under each chapter 0f the bankruptcy code, and that
they had delivered t0 her the notice required by 11 U.S.C. Section 342(b) were false when made.
TSE and LUN ASSOCIATES’ further submission 0f a Certificate 0f Counseling, purportedly
digitally signed by plaintiff, was also a false statement t0 the United States Bankruptcy Court, as
10
plaintiff was in China at the time that TSE submitted this form t0 the United States Bankruptcy
11
Court and could not have completed the counseling course. TSE’S and LUN ASSOCIATES’
12
representation t0 the United States Bankruptcy Court that TSE had Plaintiff” s consent t0 submit
13
and sign these documents 0n her behalf were also false representations when he made them t0
14
the United States Bankruptcy Court.
15
21. Plaintiff never authorized LEUNG t0 hire TSE, LUN 0r LUN ASSOCIATES t0
16
file the bankruptcy petition 0n her behalf, never consented t0 having TSE, LUN 0r LUN
17
ASSOCIATES file such a petition 0n her behalf, nor did she consent t0 TSE ,LUN, 0r LUN
18
ASSOCIATES’ submission 0f a digitally signed bankruptcy petition 0r a Certificate 0f
19
Counseling for her. Plaintiff did not know about the bankruptcy petition until after it was filed.
20
TSE, LUN, or LUN AS SOCIATES never withdrew as plaintiffs counsel and never terminated
21
their law firm’s representation 0f plaintiff.
22 22. TSE and LUN ASSOCIATES’ conduct and actions in making false statements t0
23 the United States Bankruptcy Court, and filing documents 0n plaintiff’s behalf without her
24 consent 0r knowledge, were unethical and potentially illegal acts under the United States
25 Criminal Code, constituting, among other actions, possible Violations 0f 18 U.S.C. Section 152
26 oaths and declarations in bankruptcy proceedings).
(2), (3) (prohibiting false
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -7-
23. LEUNG, TSE, LUN and LUN ASSOCIATES’ filing 0f the bankruptcy petition in
plaintiff’s name has caused, and continues t0 cause, her t0 suffer substantial damages. Plaintiff
has been denied credit because 0f this bankruptcy filing because the petition creates the false
impression that Plaintiff is a poor credit risk.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage —
Against Defendants LEUNG and DOES 1 through 20)
24. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 23
0f this Complaint as though fully alleged herein.
10
25. Plaintiff entered into Residential Property Agreement regarding the Burlingame
11
Property with prospective buyers in 0r about December 2018.
12
26. Defendant LEUNG was aware 0f this Residential Property Agreement and was
13
also aware 0f the fact that the title company required the previous owners, the Pascuals, t0
14
submit a Sellers’ Affidavit t0 confirm that Plaintiff and her son held title to the Burlingame
15
Property before the titlecompany would issue title insurance in favor 0f the prospective buyers.
16
27. By doing the acts specified above, LEUNG acted wrongfully towards plaintiff,
17
with the intention 0f preventing plaintiff from selling the Burlingame Property unless she paid
18
his brother $80,000, a sum to which neither he nor his brother was entitled.
19
28. As a result 0f defendants’ wrongful conduct, plaintiff suffered harm and damages,
20
in an amount t0 be proved at trial.
21
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
22
(Breach 0f Fiduciary Duty against LEUNG and DOES 1 through 20)
23
29. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 23
24
0f this complaint as though fully alleged herein.
25
26
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -8-
30. In connection with Plaintiff” s purchase of the Burlingame Property in December
2012, LEUNG acted as Plaintiff’s real estate agent and plaintiff placed her trust and confidence
in him that he would serve and protect her interests in the transaction.
3 1. In reality, as described above, and unknown t0 plaintiff at that time, Defendant
LEUNG planned t0 earn a secret commission 0n 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 t0 secure payment 0f this commission, by preparing and having
the Pascuals issue a grant deed that named his brother as a co-owner 0f the BURLINGAME
PROPERTY along with Plaintiff.
10
32. In doing so, LEUNG breached his fiduciary obligations t0 Plaintiff of full and
11
complete disclosure t0 her, and 0f loyalty, including by failing t0 disclose the existence 0f the
12
Residential Purchase Agreement signed by his brother and the Pascuals for the same property,
13
failing t0 disclose his intention t0 earn a secret profit off of Plaintiff when Plaintiff later sold the
14
BURLINGAME PROPERTY, and the existence 0f the second Residential Purchase Agreement
15
signed by the Pascuals and his brother only two days after Plaintiff entered into her contract with
16
the Pascuals for the same property and later by misrepresenting t0 Plaintiff, her broker and the
17
titlecompany in December 201 8 that his brother was owed $80,000 0n a loan he had made t0
18
Plaintiff t0 help her purchase the BURLINGAME PROPERTY.
19
33. Plaintiff was not aware 0f, and did not know about, the existence 0f Plaintiff’s
20
intention t0 earn a secret profit from her purchase of the BURLINGAME PROPERTY or the
21
existence 0f the second Residential Purchase Agreement signed by the Pascuals and Joseph
22 Leung in December 2012 concerning the BURLINGAME PROPERTY until late December
23 when her from the Pascuals.
2018, attorney obtained a copy 0f it
24 34. As a result 0f LEUNG’S conduct, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount t0 be
25 determined at the trier 0f fact.
trial by
26
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -9-
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Defamation 0f Credit Against All Defendants)
35. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9
and 18 through 23 0f this Complaint as though fully alleged herein.
36. By filing a bankruptcy petition in Plaintiff” s name but without her consent,
defendants LEUNG, TSE, LUN, and LUN ASSOCIATES made a false and disparaging remark
concerning plaintiffs credit, which was unprivileged and which was published about her t0 third
parties, such as credit reporting agencies.
37. As a result 0f defendants’ conduct, plaintiff has been damaged by defendants’
10
conduct in an amount t0 be determine at trialby the trier0f fact. Defendants’ conduct t0 plaintiff
11
was oppressive, fraudulent and malicious. Defendant TSE, by filing the fraudulent bankruptcy
12
petition without plaintiff” s consent 0r knowledge and by forging her name t0 the petition and
13
accompanying bankruptcy submissions, acted in conscious disregard 0f plaintiff’s rights,
14
justifying an award 0f exemplary damages against TSE, LUN and LUN ASSOCIATES under
15
California Civil Code Section 3294 t0 deter them from engaging such wrongful conduct in the
16
future, in an amount t0 be determined by the trier 0f fact. (Plaintiff does not seek exemplary
17
damages from LEUNG ESTATE only because LEUNG has died and such damages are not
18
recoverable from an estate.)
19
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20
(Negligence Against TSE, LUN, LUN ASSOCIATES and DOES 1 through 20)
21
38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 9
22
and 18 through 23 0f this Complaint as though fully alleged herein.
23
39. By filing a petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court 0n behalf 0f plaintiff 0n
24
December 2014, TSE, LUN and LUN ASSOCIATES entered into a lawyer-client relationship
25
With plaintiff.
26
40. By failing to confirm by telephone or in person with plaintiff that she, in fact, had
27
authorized LUN ASSOCIATES, LUN and TSE t0 file a bankruptcy petition 0n her behalf and
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -10-
that she had in fact consented t0 their filing 0f the petition and certificate 0f counseling under her
purported signature, TSE, LUN and LUN ASSOCIATES breached the duty 0f care that they as
attorneys owed t0 Plaintiff.
41. As a result 0f defendants’ negligence, plaintiff suffered damages, and continues t0
suffer damages, in an amount t0 be determined at trial by the trier 0f fact, due t0 the harm that
the defendants’ actions caused her credit and financial reputation t0 suffer.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Claim for Violations 0f California Business & Professions Code Section 17200
against all Defendants)
10
42. Plaintiff hereby incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 41 0f
11
this Complaint as though fully alleged herein.
12
43. By doing the acts complained 0f herein, defendants and each 0f them engaged in
13
unlawful, unfair 0r fraudulent business act 0r practices, including fraud 0n the court, bankruptcy
14
fraud, defamation 0f credit, and identity theft in Violation 0f federal and California law.
15
44. Plaintiff has been harmed by defendants’ conduct and is therefore entitled t0 seek
16
restitution from alldefendants and injunctive relief from defendants TSE, LUN, and LUN
17
ASSOCIATES and DOES 1 through 20.
18
19
BRAXERLQRRELIEE
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
20
A. On the First and Second Causes 0f Action, damages according t0 proof at trial in
21
an amount in excess 0f $25,000, and prejudgment interest 0n all sums due, against LEUNG and
22
DOES 1 through 20;
23
B. On the Third Cause 0f Action, damages according t0 proof at trial in an amount
24
in excess 0f $25,000, and prejudgment interest 0n allsums due, from alldefendants, and
25
punitive damages and damages according t0 proof at trial in an amount in excess 0f $25,000
26
against TSE, LUN, LUN ASSOCIATES and DOES 1 through 20.
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -11-
C. On the Fourth Cause 0f Action, damages according t0 proof at trial inan amount
in excess 0f $25,000, and prejudgment interest 0n allsums due, from TSE, LUN, and LUN
ASSOCIATES and DOES 1 through 20;
D. On the Fifth Cause 0f Action, she requests restitution from all defendants and
injunctive relief from TSE, LUN, LUN ASSOCIATES and DOES 1 through 20, plus
prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees 0n allsums due from all defendants;
E. On all causes 0f action, plaintiff requests costs 0f suit, including attorneys’ fees;
and
F. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.
10
11 Dated: May 27, 2020
12
13
14
WW
MURPHY COOKE KOBRICK LLP
CHRISTOPHER C.
Caaa
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
COOKE,
15 MEI FANG LISA ZHANG
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC
ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND
VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -12-
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I, STEVEN R. RUTH, declare:
1. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the action. My address is
630 Grand View Avenue, #205, San Francisco, California.
2. On May 28, 2020, I served the foregoing AMENDED COMPLAINT by
placing a true copy in the United States mail at San Francisco, California enclosed in a sealed
envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows:
Joseph Tse
Lun & Associates
3900 Newpark Mall, Suite 205E
Newark, CA 94560
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed on May 20, 2020, at San Francisco, California.
STEVEN R. RUTH
Preview
Electrunically CHRISTOPHER COOKE, CA Bar #142342 STEVEN R RUTH, CA Bar #146868 Supermr Cmrt cufEahfc-rnmrflnunry nfSan Maren- b}- MURPHY COOKE KOBRICK LLP cw 5/28/2020 177 Bovet Road, Suite 600 A “1 B . . B” San Mateo, CA 94402 ’LEEPEJEEE'“ Email: ccooke@mckllp.com Tel: (650) 638-2370 Attorneys for Plaintiff MEI-FANG LISA ZHANG SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO — UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 11 MEI-FANG LISA ZHANG, Case N0.: 19-CV-04461 12 Plaintiff, 13 VS. AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH 14 BERNARD CHI FAI LEUNG, AKA PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC 15 BERNARD LEUNG; JOSEPH TSE; WENDY ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY LUN; LUN & ASSOCIATES; AND DOES 1- DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, 16 20, INCLUSIVE, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, 17 CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & 18 19 Plaintiff alleges for her Complaint as follows: 20 IHEBARIIES 21 1. Plaintiff Mei-Fang “Lisa” Zhang is an adult woman over the age 0f eighteen and, 22 at all times relevant t0 this complaint, was a resident 0f San Mateo County, California. 23 2. Bernard Chi Fai Leung, also known as Bernard Leung (“LEUNG”) was, when 24 this action was filed, an adult male over the age 0f eighteen and was at alltimes relevant t0 this 25 complaint a resident 0f San Mateo County, California and was named and served with summons 26 as a defendant in this action when it was filed 0n August 1, 2019. LEUNG held a real estate 27 broker’s license issued by the California Department 0f Real Estate, license n0. 01027052. 28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -1- LEUNG died, intestate, 0n 0r about October 18, 2019. Plaintiff filed a Petition for Letters of Administration and for Authorization t0 Administer under the Independent Administration Estates Act with the Probate Division 0f this Court 0n February 6, 2020, seeking t0 have herself, as a creditor, be appointed as the personal representative 0f the Estate 0f Bernard Chi Fai Leung (LEUNG ESTATE), which petition is stillpending and not ruled upon because 0f the shutdown 0f this Court due t0 the Coronavirus and the Orders 0f the Public Health Officer 0f San Mateo County and the Chief Justice 0f the California Supreme Court. Plaintiff intends t0 submit her claims against LEUNG t0 the personal representative 0f the LEUNG ESTATE if someone other than plaintiff is named as the personal representative 0f LEUNG ESTATE and rejects her claims 10 against LEUNG ESTATE. Plaintiff will, by motion, seek leave 0f court pursuant t0 Code 0f 11 Civil Procedure Section 377.41 t0 amend this complaint t0 name this person as a defendant 12 herein in his 0r her capacity as the personal representative 0f the LEUNG ESTATE once he 0r 13 she is appointed by the Probate Court as the personal representative LEUNG ESTATE and 14 rejects Plaintiff’s claims against it. 15 3. Defendant JOSEPH TSE (“TSE”) isan adult male over the age 0f eighteen, and at 16 all relevant times has been, an attorney licensed by the California State Bar. TSE, at all relevant 17 times, has lived and worked in in Alameda County, California, and has practiced law with the 18 law firm LUN & ASSOCIATES. 19 4. Defendant WENDY LUN (“LUN”) is an adult female over the age 0f eighteen, 20 and at all relevant times has been, an attorney licensed by the California State Bar. LUN is the 21 founding partner of the law firm LUN & ASSOCIATES, which has offices in Newark, San Jose 22 and Palo Alto. 23 5. Defendant LUN & ASSOCIATES (“LUN ASSOCIATES”), form of entity 24 unknown, is and at all relevant times has been a law firm with offices in Newark and Palo Alto, 25 California. At all relevant times, TSE worked for LUN ASSOCIATES as an attorney and acted 26 0n itsbehalf with the actual 0r apparent authority t0 d0 so when he engaged in the actions 27 28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -2- described herein. LUN is a partner 0f TSE and jointly and severally responsible for his actions and inactions described herein. 6. Plaintiff does not know the names and capacities 0f Defendants DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint when the true names and capacities 0f said Defendants are ascertained. 7. Plaintiff is informed and believe and, 0n that basis, alleges that at all times herein mentioned, each 0f the Defendants were the agents, servants, employees, representatives, officers, directors, fiduciaries, joint venturers, and/or predecessors 0r successors in interest 0f each remaining Defendant herein, and in doing things herein alleged, were acting Within the 10 scope 0f their authority, with the permission, consent, 0r ratification 0f their Co-Defendants, and 11 each 0f them. 12 13 8. Jurisdiction in this court is proper because the amount in controversy exceeds 14 $25,000 and therefore is within the unlimited civil jurisdiction 0f this court. 15 9. Venue isproper in San Mateo county under California Code 0f Civil Procedure 16 Sections 395(a) and 395.5 because one 0r more defendants resided in San Mateo County at the 17 commencement 0f this action, defendants’ conduct that is the subj ect 0f this complaint took 18 place in San Mateo County, and defendants’ liability arose in San Mateo County. 19 GENERALALLEGAIIQNS 20 10. Plaintiff was formerly the girlfriend 0f BERNARD LEUNG. This complaint 21 arises from two distinct instances 0f tortious conduct by LEUNG in which he took advantage 0f 22 plaintiff’s trust and confidence in him. The first instance arose from plaintiff” s purchase 0f a 23 single-family residence in Burlingame, California and her recent sale 0f that residence. The 24 second concerns a bankruptcy petition filed in December 2014 by TSE, LUN and LUN 25 ASSOCIATES 0n instructions received solely from LEUNG but filed in Plaintiff’s name, 26 without her knowledge 0r consent. 27 28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -3- A. BERNARD LEUNG’S FRAUDULENT GRANT DEED AND INTERFERENCE WITH PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY SALE 11. In 0r about December 2012, LEUNG acted as a real estate broker t0 assist ZHANG in purchasing a single-family residence located 0n 3040 Arguello Drive, Burlingame California (the “Burlingame Property”) from 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 0f $1,550,000, which plaintiff and the Pascuals both signed 0n 0r about December 26, 2012. LEUNG did not identify himself as acting as a real estate broker for either the buyer (Ms. Zhang) 0r the sellers 0n the 10 Residential Purchase Agreement, did not open an escrow for this transaction, and did not use a 11 titlecompany t0 assist with sales transaction 0r t0 transfer title. 12 12. Two days later,0n December 28, 2012, LEUNG also completed an California 13 Residential Purchase Agreement for the same Burlingame Property, this time, however, 14 identifying his brother Joseph C.M, Leung, as the buyer, the Pascuals as the sellers, and for a 15 purchase price 0f $1,470,000—exact1y $80,000 lower than Ms. Zhang’s contract—which Joseph 16 Leung and the Pascuals apparently also signed. LEUNG once again did not identify himself as 17 acting as a real estate broker for either the buyer 0r the sellers 0n the contract, did not open an 18 escrow for the transaction, and did not use a titlecompany t0 assist with the sale 0r transfer 0f 19 title. Instead, and unknown t0 plaintiff at that time, LEUNG prepared a “Grant Deed” by which 20 the Pascuals purported t0 convey all interest in the Burlingame Property to Plaintiff Mei-Fang 21 Lisa Zhang and Joseph C.M. Leung “as husband and wife,” even though they were not and had 22 never been married and never held themselves out as “husband and wife.” LEUNG, however, 23 did not record this Grant Deed. 24 13. Although there were two Residential Purchase Agreements prepared and executed 25 for the Burlingame Property, neither Plaintiff nor Joseph C. M. Leung closed 0n the sale 0f the 26 Burlingame Property. Instead, plaintiff assumed all pre-existing financial obligations for the 27 28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -4- Burlingame Property from the Pascuals, and made all mortgage payments, and paid all property taxes and insurance due with respect t0 the Burlingame Property instead 0f the Pascuals. 14. At some time during 2016, LEUNG gave Plaintiff the grant deed that he had obtained from the Pascuals. Plaintiff did not record this grant deed however, because she noticed that it improperly identified the owners 0f the property as herself and Joseph C. M. Leung as “husband and wife” and she did not want (nor had she agreed) t0 share title t0 the Burlingame Property with Joseph C. M. Leung. 15. In 0r about December 201 8, plaintiff received an offer to sell the Burlingame Property to another family. During the closing, the title company asked the Pascuals for a 10 seller’s affidavit t0 confirm that they had in fact previously sold the Burlingame Property t0 11 plaintiff. The Pascuals, acting 0n instructions from LEUNG, refused t0 confirm the validity 0f 12 Plaintiff” s grant deed vesting title in the Burlingame Property in her name and the name 0f her 13 son, because the copy 0f the grant deed they signed and had provided t0 LEUNG vested title in 14 Plaintiff and Joseph Leung. Defendant LEUNG claimed t0 the title company that plaintiff owed 15 Joseph Leung $80,000 0n an original $1 10,000 loan that Joseph had previously made t0 plaintiff 16 t0 assist her in buying the Burlingame Property. 17 16. In 0r about December 201 8 and again in January 2019, LEUNG advised the title 18 company and plaintiff that he refused t0 have Joseph remove his claim for titlet0 the Burlingame 19 Property, and, upon information and belief, LEUNG instructed the Pascuals not t0 provide the 20 seller’s affidavit confirming that they had sold the Burlingame Property to Plaintiff, unless 21 Plaintiff wired $80,000 from the escrow established for the sale 0f the Burlingame Property to a 22 bank account in China purportedly belonging t0 his brother. Not wishing t0 lose the buyer’s offer 23 to purchase the Burlingame Property, plaintiff acceded t0 LEUNG’S demands so that she could 24 sell the Burlingame Property before the buyers’ financial expired. 25 17. LEUNG’S story about his brother’s loan t0 plaintiff was false. His brother Joseph 26 C. M. Leung did not lend any sum t0 plaintiff for purchase 0f the Burlingame Property and was 27 not entitled t0 receive any sum from the sale 0f the Burlingame Property. 28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -5- B. BERNARD LEUNG’S FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY FILING IN PLAINTIFF’S NAME 18. 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 commenced against her. LEUNG, who had n0 other residence at the time, contacted and hired defendant TSE, an attorney with LUN ASSOCIATES, t0 prepare and file a bankruptcy t0 stay the eviction proceedings against Plaintiff and against him, as an occupant 0f the same Millbrae residence. However, LEUNG did not file the proceedings in his name. Rather, he retained TSE 0f the law firm LUN ASSOCIATES purportedly 0n behalf 0f 10 Plaintiff, to file a bankruptcy petition in her name. Plaintiff is informed and believes that 11 LEUNG represented t0 TSE and LUN ASSOCIATES that plaintiff had authorized him to file 12 such proceedings 0n her behalf, while she was away in China. Plaintiff, however, did not 13 authorize LEUNG t0 file a bankruptcy petition 0n her behalf. 14 19. LEUNG sent emails t0 TSE and LUN ASSOCIATES in Plaintiff” s name, without 15 her permission 0r knowledge, t0 provide authorization t0 file the bankruptcy petition in 16 Plaintiff’s name. LEUNG used a Gmail account that he established in Plaintiff’s name t0 send 17 these emails t0 TSE and LUN ASSOCIATES. On 0r about December 15, 2014, TSE, on behalf 18 0f LUN ASSOCIATES filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition under Chapter 7 0f the Title 11, 19 United States Code, in Plaintiff” sname with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern 20 District 0f California, case number 14-3 1796. In Exhibit B 0f the petition, TSE and LUN 21 represented t0 the Bankruptcy Court that they were Plaintiff” s attorneys, and they were 22 authorized t0 file this petition 0n plaintiff” s behalf, and that they had explained the relief 23 available t0 her under each chapter 0f the bankruptcy code, and that they had delivered t0 her the 24 notice required by 11 U.S.C. Section 342(b) (this notice explains t0 individuals different aspects 25 0f Chapter 7, Chapter 11, Chapter 12 and Chapter 13 0f the Bankruptcy Code). They also 26 submitted 0n her behalf a Certificate 0f Counseling, purportedly digitally signed by plaintiff, in 27 which plaintiff represented that she had received the required credit counseling briefing. In 28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -6- submitting the petition and the Certificate 0f Counseling using the federal bankruptcy court’s e- filing system, TSE represented, t0 the United States Bankruptcy Court that he had plaintiff’s consent t0 submit and sign these documents 0n her behalf. 20. TSE’S and LUN ASSOCIATES’ representations t0 the United States Bankruptcy Court that they were authorized by plaintiff t0 file the bankruptcy petition 0n her behalf, that they had explained the relief available t0 her under each chapter 0f the bankruptcy code, and that they had delivered t0 her the notice required by 11 U.S.C. Section 342(b) were false when made. TSE and LUN ASSOCIATES’ further submission 0f a Certificate 0f Counseling, purportedly digitally signed by plaintiff, was also a false statement t0 the United States Bankruptcy Court, as 10 plaintiff was in China at the time that TSE submitted this form t0 the United States Bankruptcy 11 Court and could not have completed the counseling course. TSE’S and LUN ASSOCIATES’ 12 representation t0 the United States Bankruptcy Court that TSE had Plaintiff” s consent t0 submit 13 and sign these documents 0n her behalf were also false representations when he made them t0 14 the United States Bankruptcy Court. 15 21. Plaintiff never authorized LEUNG t0 hire TSE, LUN 0r LUN ASSOCIATES t0 16 file the bankruptcy petition 0n her behalf, never consented t0 having TSE, LUN 0r LUN 17 ASSOCIATES file such a petition 0n her behalf, nor did she consent t0 TSE ,LUN, 0r LUN 18 ASSOCIATES’ submission 0f a digitally signed bankruptcy petition 0r a Certificate 0f 19 Counseling for her. Plaintiff did not know about the bankruptcy petition until after it was filed. 20 TSE, LUN, or LUN AS SOCIATES never withdrew as plaintiffs counsel and never terminated 21 their law firm’s representation 0f plaintiff. 22 22. TSE and LUN ASSOCIATES’ conduct and actions in making false statements t0 23 the United States Bankruptcy Court, and filing documents 0n plaintiff’s behalf without her 24 consent 0r knowledge, were unethical and potentially illegal acts under the United States 25 Criminal Code, constituting, among other actions, possible Violations 0f 18 U.S.C. Section 152 26 oaths and declarations in bankruptcy proceedings). (2), (3) (prohibiting false 27 28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -7- 23. LEUNG, TSE, LUN and LUN ASSOCIATES’ filing 0f the bankruptcy petition in plaintiff’s name has caused, and continues t0 cause, her t0 suffer substantial damages. Plaintiff has been denied credit because 0f this bankruptcy filing because the petition creates the false impression that Plaintiff is a poor credit risk. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage — Against Defendants LEUNG and DOES 1 through 20) 24. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 23 0f this Complaint as though fully alleged herein. 10 25. Plaintiff entered into Residential Property Agreement regarding the Burlingame 11 Property with prospective buyers in 0r about December 2018. 12 26. Defendant LEUNG was aware 0f this Residential Property Agreement and was 13 also aware 0f the fact that the title company required the previous owners, the Pascuals, t0 14 submit a Sellers’ Affidavit t0 confirm that Plaintiff and her son held title to the Burlingame 15 Property before the titlecompany would issue title insurance in favor 0f the prospective buyers. 16 27. By doing the acts specified above, LEUNG acted wrongfully towards plaintiff, 17 with the intention 0f preventing plaintiff from selling the Burlingame Property unless she paid 18 his brother $80,000, a sum to which neither he nor his brother was entitled. 19 28. As a result 0f defendants’ wrongful conduct, plaintiff suffered harm and damages, 20 in an amount t0 be proved at trial. 21 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 22 (Breach 0f Fiduciary Duty against LEUNG and DOES 1 through 20) 23 29. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 23 24 0f this complaint as though fully alleged herein. 25 26 27 28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -8- 30. In connection with Plaintiff” s purchase of the Burlingame Property in December 2012, LEUNG acted as Plaintiff’s real estate agent and plaintiff placed her trust and confidence in him that he would serve and protect her interests in the transaction. 3 1. In reality, as described above, and unknown t0 plaintiff at that time, Defendant LEUNG planned t0 earn a secret commission 0n 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 t0 secure payment 0f this commission, by preparing and having the Pascuals issue a grant deed that named his brother as a co-owner 0f the BURLINGAME PROPERTY along with Plaintiff. 10 32. In doing so, LEUNG breached his fiduciary obligations t0 Plaintiff of full and 11 complete disclosure t0 her, and 0f loyalty, including by failing t0 disclose the existence 0f the 12 Residential Purchase Agreement signed by his brother and the Pascuals for the same property, 13 failing t0 disclose his intention t0 earn a secret profit off of Plaintiff when Plaintiff later sold the 14 BURLINGAME PROPERTY, and the existence 0f the second Residential Purchase Agreement 15 signed by the Pascuals and his brother only two days after Plaintiff entered into her contract with 16 the Pascuals for the same property and later by misrepresenting t0 Plaintiff, her broker and the 17 titlecompany in December 201 8 that his brother was owed $80,000 0n a loan he had made t0 18 Plaintiff t0 help her purchase the BURLINGAME PROPERTY. 19 33. Plaintiff was not aware 0f, and did not know about, the existence 0f Plaintiff’s 20 intention t0 earn a secret profit from her purchase of the BURLINGAME PROPERTY or the 21 existence 0f the second Residential Purchase Agreement signed by the Pascuals and Joseph 22 Leung in December 2012 concerning the BURLINGAME PROPERTY until late December 23 when her from the Pascuals. 2018, attorney obtained a copy 0f it 24 34. As a result 0f LEUNG’S conduct, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount t0 be 25 determined at the trier 0f fact. trial by 26 27 28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -9- THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation 0f Credit Against All Defendants) 35. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 9 and 18 through 23 0f this Complaint as though fully alleged herein. 36. By filing a bankruptcy petition in Plaintiff” s name but without her consent, defendants LEUNG, TSE, LUN, and LUN ASSOCIATES made a false and disparaging remark concerning plaintiffs credit, which was unprivileged and which was published about her t0 third parties, such as credit reporting agencies. 37. As a result 0f defendants’ conduct, plaintiff has been damaged by defendants’ 10 conduct in an amount t0 be determine at trialby the trier0f fact. Defendants’ conduct t0 plaintiff 11 was oppressive, fraudulent and malicious. Defendant TSE, by filing the fraudulent bankruptcy 12 petition without plaintiff” s consent 0r knowledge and by forging her name t0 the petition and 13 accompanying bankruptcy submissions, acted in conscious disregard 0f plaintiff’s rights, 14 justifying an award 0f exemplary damages against TSE, LUN and LUN ASSOCIATES under 15 California Civil Code Section 3294 t0 deter them from engaging such wrongful conduct in the 16 future, in an amount t0 be determined by the trier 0f fact. (Plaintiff does not seek exemplary 17 damages from LEUNG ESTATE only because LEUNG has died and such damages are not 18 recoverable from an estate.) 19 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 20 (Negligence Against TSE, LUN, LUN ASSOCIATES and DOES 1 through 20) 21 38. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 9 22 and 18 through 23 0f this Complaint as though fully alleged herein. 23 39. By filing a petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court 0n behalf 0f plaintiff 0n 24 December 2014, TSE, LUN and LUN ASSOCIATES entered into a lawyer-client relationship 25 With plaintiff. 26 40. By failing to confirm by telephone or in person with plaintiff that she, in fact, had 27 authorized LUN ASSOCIATES, LUN and TSE t0 file a bankruptcy petition 0n her behalf and 28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -10- that she had in fact consented t0 their filing 0f the petition and certificate 0f counseling under her purported signature, TSE, LUN and LUN ASSOCIATES breached the duty 0f care that they as attorneys owed t0 Plaintiff. 41. As a result 0f defendants’ negligence, plaintiff suffered damages, and continues t0 suffer damages, in an amount t0 be determined at trial by the trier 0f fact, due t0 the harm that the defendants’ actions caused her credit and financial reputation t0 suffer. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Claim for Violations 0f California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 against all Defendants) 10 42. Plaintiff hereby incorporate the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 41 0f 11 this Complaint as though fully alleged herein. 12 43. By doing the acts complained 0f herein, defendants and each 0f them engaged in 13 unlawful, unfair 0r fraudulent business act 0r practices, including fraud 0n the court, bankruptcy 14 fraud, defamation 0f credit, and identity theft in Violation 0f federal and California law. 15 44. Plaintiff has been harmed by defendants’ conduct and is therefore entitled t0 seek 16 restitution from alldefendants and injunctive relief from defendants TSE, LUN, and LUN 17 ASSOCIATES and DOES 1 through 20. 18 19 BRAXERLQRRELIEE WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: 20 A. On the First and Second Causes 0f Action, damages according t0 proof at trial in 21 an amount in excess 0f $25,000, and prejudgment interest 0n all sums due, against LEUNG and 22 DOES 1 through 20; 23 B. On the Third Cause 0f Action, damages according t0 proof at trial in an amount 24 in excess 0f $25,000, and prejudgment interest 0n allsums due, from alldefendants, and 25 punitive damages and damages according t0 proof at trial in an amount in excess 0f $25,000 26 against TSE, LUN, LUN ASSOCIATES and DOES 1 through 20. 27 28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -11- C. On the Fourth Cause 0f Action, damages according t0 proof at trial inan amount in excess 0f $25,000, and prejudgment interest 0n allsums due, from TSE, LUN, and LUN ASSOCIATES and DOES 1 through 20; D. On the Fifth Cause 0f Action, she requests restitution from all defendants and injunctive relief from TSE, LUN, LUN ASSOCIATES and DOES 1 through 20, plus prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees 0n allsums due from all defendants; E. On all causes 0f action, plaintiff requests costs 0f suit, including attorneys’ fees; and F. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. 10 11 Dated: May 27, 2020 12 13 14 WW MURPHY COOKE KOBRICK LLP CHRISTOPHER C. Caaa Attorneys for Plaintiff, COOKE, 15 MEI FANG LISA ZHANG 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION OF CREDIT, NEGLIGENCE, AND VIOLATIONS OF, CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 -12- PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I, STEVEN R. RUTH, declare: 1. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the action. My address is 630 Grand View Avenue, #205, San Francisco, California. 2. On May 28, 2020, I served the foregoing AMENDED COMPLAINT by placing a true copy in the United States mail at San Francisco, California enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed as follows: Joseph Tse Lun & Associates 3900 Newpark Mall, Suite 205E Newark, CA 94560 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on May 20, 2020, at San Francisco, California. STEVEN R. RUTH