Case Number: KC069368 Hearing Date: June 05, 2018 Dept: J

Re: Dr. Shang-Jung Yang v. Raymond Chihwei Li, et al. (KC069368)

(1) MOTION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING THE TRUTH OF ALL MATTERS ADMITTED IN PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT RAYMOND CHIHWEI LI; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES—GENERAL, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT RAYMOND CHIHWEI LI

Moving Party: Plaintiff Shang-Jung Yang

Respondent: No timely opposition filed (due 5/22/18)

POS: Moving OK

Plaintiff alleges that on or about 1/13/17, defendants signed a settlement agreement with him wher defendants promised to pay back to plaintiff $400,000.00 that plaintiff had invested with defendants in an effort to secure an EB-5 Visa. Plaintiff claims that defendants have breached the settlement agreement by only paying back $50,000.00. The complaint, filed 6/8/17, asserts a cause of action against Defendants Raymond Chihwei Li, Gary Lin, Impax, Inc. and Does 1-50 for breach of contract.

A court trial is set for 7/2/18.

(1) MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED:

Plaintiff Shang-Jung Yang (“plaintiff”) moves for an order, per CCP § 2033.280, that the truth of all specified matters in his Request for Admissions, Set No. One, propounded to Defendant Raymond Chihwei Li (“Li”) be deemed admitted. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,860.00.

“If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:…(b) The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” CCP § 2033.280.

On 2/20/18, plaintiff mail-served his Request for Admission, Set No. One on Li. (Wong Decl., ¶ 3, Exhibit “A”). On 4/16/18, plaintiff’s counsel Dixon Wong (“Wong”) sent a letter to Li’s counsel Franklin Tzeng and Kevin Liu, advising them that Li’s responses were overdue and asking them to provide responses, sans objections, by 4/27/18. (Id., ¶ 5, Exhibit “B”). Wong has not received any response to this letter. (Id., ¶ 7).

Unless verified responses have been served prior to the hearing, the motion is granted and those matters set forth in the requests for admissions are deemed admitted. Sanctions are awarded, but reduced to $660.00 (i.e., 1 hour preparing motion, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $300.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee), payable be defendant Li and his counsel within 10 days.

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES:

Plaintiff Shang-Jung Yang (“plaintiff”) moves for an order, per CCP § 2030.290, requiring Defendant Raymond Chihwei Li (“Li”) to provide responses to his Form Interrogatories—General, Set No. One. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,660.00.

“Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them onthe propounding party…” CCP § 2030.260(a). “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the following rules apply:… (b) The party propounding the interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (c) The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust…” CCP § 2030.290.

On 2/20/18, plaintiff mail-served his Form Interrogatories—General, Set No. One on Li. (Wong Decl., ¶ 3, Exhibit “A”). On 4/16/18, plaintiff’s counsel Dixon Wong (“Wong”) sent a letter to Li’s counsel Franklin Tzeng and Kevin Liu, advising them that Li’s responses were overdue and asking them to provide responses, sans objections, by 4/27/18. (Id., ¶ 5, Exhibit “B”). Wong has not received any response to this letter. (Id., ¶ 7).

Unless verified responses without objection have been served prior to the hearing, the motion is granted and defendant Li is ordered to served verified responses without objection within 10 days. Sanctions are awarded, but reduced to $660.00 (i.e., 1 hour preparing motion, plus 1 hour attending hearing at $300.00/hour, plus $60.00 filing fee), payable by defendant Li and his counsel within 10 days.