Re: Wei-Ming Liou, et al. v. Jolin Yi Lin Tsai, et al. (KC067919)
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
Moving Party: Specially Appearing Defendant Jolin Tsai
Respondents: Plaintiffs, We-Ming Liou and Yena Liou (Defendant Li-Lin Hsu’s opposition is not considered. It is unclear how she would have any standing to interject herself into this motion. Additionally, it is plaintiff’s burden to show jurisdiction over moving defendant. At any rate, the opposition is not supported by a declaration; as such, none of the exhibits attached thereto may be considered.)
POS: Moving OK; Opposing by Plaintiffs filed just 8 court days prior to the hearing in violation of CCP § 1005(b)
Plaintiffs are seeking damages resulting from the purportedly fraudulent sale of Oops J, a nail salon business, against individual defendants. Plaintiffs are also seeking damages resulting from Defendant Li-Lin Hsu’s alleged misconduct while acting as their broker within the scope of her employment by Defendant Ameri
Hearing Date
December 12, 2016
Type
Contractual Fraud (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Re: Wei-Ming Liou, et al. v. Jolin Yi Lin Tsai, et al. (KC067919)
MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
Moving Party: Specially Appearing Defendant Jolin Tsai
Respondents: Plaintiffs, We-Ming Liou and Yena Liou (Defendant Li-Lin Hsu’s opposition is not considered. It is unclear how she would have any standing to interject herself into this motion. Additionally, it is plaintiff’s burden to show jurisdiction over moving defendant. At any rate, the opposition is not supported by a declaration; as such, none of the exhibits attached thereto may be considered.)
POS: Moving OK; Opposing by Plaintiffs filed just 8 court days prior to the hearing in violation of CCP § 1005(b)
Plaintiffs are seeking damages resulting from the purportedly fraudulent sale of Oops J, a nail salon business, against individual defendants. Plaintiffs are also seeking damages resulting from Defendant Li-Lin Hsu’s alleged misconduct while acting as their broker within the scope of her employment by Defendant Ameri