Case Number: KC069368 Hearing Date: June 13, 2018 Dept: J

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

(1) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT RAYMOND CHIHWEI LI; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE, PROPOUNDED TO DEFENDANT RAYMOND CHIHWEI LI

Moving Party: Plaintiff Shang-Jung Yang

Respondent: No timely opposition filed (due 5/31/18)

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 COMPEL RE: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS:

Plaintiff Shang-Jung Yang (“plaintiff”) moves the court for an order, per CCP § 2031.300, requiring Defendant Raymond Chihwei Li (“Li”) to provide responses to his Requests for Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff also seeks monetary sanctions against Li and/or his attorney of record in the amount of $2,660.00.

“Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand…” CCP § 2031.260(a). “If a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the following rules shall apply…(b) The party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand. (c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), 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 a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, 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 § 2031.300.

On 2/20/18, plaintiff mail-served his Requests for Production, 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., ¶ 6).

Unless verified responses have been served prior to the hearing, the motion is granted and Li is ordered to serve a verified response and to produce the documents requested within 10 days of the hearing. 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.

(2) MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES:

Plaintiff Shang-Jung Yang (“plaintiff”) moves the court for an order, per CCP § 2030.290, requiring Defendant Raymond Chihwei Li (“Li”) to provide responses to his Special Interrogatories, 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 Special Interrogatories, 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., ¶ 6).

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.