Free Response to Order to Show Cause - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04946-JSW

Document 31

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CHRISTOPHER COOKE, CA Bar #142342 STEPHEN S. WU, CA Bar # 205091 COOKE KOBRICK & WU LLP 177 Bovet Road, Suite 600 San Mateo, CA 94402 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Tel: (650) 638-2370 Fax: (650) 341-1395 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION MEI-FANG LISA ZHANG, BAY AREA AFFORDABLE HOUSING, LLC, XUEHUAN GAO, YANG-CHUN ZHANG, CAROL JIAN DENG, and HAO LIANG, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) WEI-MAN RAYMOND TSE, RUN PING ) ) ZHOU a.k.a. FLORA ZHOU, THERESA WONG, JAMES YU, BILL SHU WAI MA, ) ) MOLLY LAU, VICTOR SO, JIAN XIAO, ) CHRIST INVESTMENT SERVICE INC., CIS ) SERVICE, INC., PACIFIC BEST GROUP ) ) LTD. a.k.a. PACIFIC BEST COMPANY LTD., and SOUTH CHINA INVESTMENT ) ) INC., ) Defendants. ) Case No.: C-07-04946 JSW (Related to C-05-02641 JSW) P A N IF ' E P N ET O D R L I TF S R S O S O R E TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY STAY SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED

B odr a dN vm e 7 20 ( e" oe br O dr ,h C ut i c dt y re dt oe br , 07 t N vm e 7 re )t or d et h e h " e r e e parties to show cause why this action should not be stayed (1) in its entirety and (2) in the ae av a t Pi t Fr Cas l L u a e natnt s co ( F L u) A st lr t e so r a it l Mo y a, df dn i h at n " C a" s e tn i ve s s l e i i P . forth more fully below, Plaintiffs do not oppose the Court entering a stay of this action as to PFC Lau, but do oppose any stay of this action in its entirety. -1P A N IF ' E P N ET O D RT S O C U E Case No.: C-07-04946 JSW L I TF S R S O S O R E O H W A S /

Case 3:07-cv-04946-JSW

Document 31

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 2 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I.

BACKGROUND T e ors oe br O dr te t ttee e a ee f m P C L u" w i h C ut N vm e 7 re s t h ir i d lt r ' as a cv tr o F a i h h n c

she advises the Court that [she] is a member of the United States Army currently serving an oe esorn oe"t N vm e 7 re a o te t tP CL u eus t th C ut vr a t i K r ;h oe br O dr l s t h "F a r et h t or s u a e s as a q s a e s yhs poed g pr atoh Sri m m e s i l eeA t 0 p. ... 522." t t e rcei s us n tt e c e br Cv R lf c 5 A pUSC § a e n u e ve ' i i , (November 7 Order at 1.) Plaintiffs have received the letter referred to in the November 7 Order and have confirmed with a JAG officer at Camp Casey that Molly Lau is indeed a private first class in the United States Army stationed in South Korea. PFC Lau, however, is the only defendant in this action in the United States military. All other defendants are civilians or corporations.

MoevrP C L ud ntnl ei hr or pnec a" t or other communication r e F a i o i u n e cr sodne lt o , d cd e eer setting forth facts stating the manner in which current military duty requirements materially a et hr ait t apa ads t gadt w e"se" i b aaal t apa " 5 f c e "b i o per n ti f " ly an a hn h wl e vib o per 0 e l l e . U.S.C. App. § 522(b)(2)(B).

II.

NON-OPPOSITION TO STAY AS TO MOLLY LAU PFC Lau failed to satisfy the requirements of 50 U.S.C. App. § 522(b)(2) to warrant a

stay in the action, because she failed to provide a letter from her commanding officer. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs do not oppose a stay as to PFC Lau for 90 days under the Sri m m e Cv R lf c ( e" c ) T eA t rv e, A ays g bfr f a e c e br i l ee A t t A t . h c poi s " t n t e e e i l ve s i i h " d a o n judgment in a civil action or proceeding in which a servicemember described in subsection (a) is a party, the court may on its own motion and shall, upon application by the servicemember, stay t at nfr pr do nteshn9 dy,fh cnios f a gah() r m t 5 h co o a e o f o l t e i i s a 0 asit od i o pr r 2 a e" 0 e tn a p e . U.S.C. App. § 522(b)(1). Paragraph (2) has two conditions: (A) a letter or other communication from the servicemember setting forth the manner in which duty requirements materially affect his or her ability to appear and an availability date, and (B) a letter or other communication from t sri m m e s o m ni of e a dsr e aoe See id. § 522(b)(2). h e c e br cm ad g fcr s ec bd bv. e ve ' n i i

-2P A N IF ' E P N ET O D RT S O C U E Case No.: C-07-04946 JSW L I TF S R S O S O R E O H W A S /

Case 3:07-cv-04946-JSW

Document 31

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 3 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 III.

No letter or other communict n rm P CL us o m ni of e apa o r od ao f i o F a'cm ad g fcr per fe r. n i s c Accordingly, she has failed to satisfy the second statutory condition to granting a stay: Section 522(b)(2)(B). Consequently, the Court has the authority to deny PFC Lau a stay altogether. See Marriage of Bradley, 282 Kan. 1, 9-14, 137 P.3d 1030, 1033-34 (2006) (denying a stay where sri m m e s t ap ct nf l t i l e ou eti o e et f e i o ait e c e br s y plao ae o n u dcm n t n f f c o sr c n b i ve ' a i i id cd ao f ve ly to appear and a letter from his commanding officer). Plaintiffs, however, do not oppose a 90-day stay as to PFC Lau, given the purpose of the A to e isri m m e t dvtt m e e t t nt ns e ne Nonetheless, if PFC ct pr te c e br o eo h sl so h ao'df s. m ve s e e v e i e Lau, who is now represented by a JAG officer at Camp Casey, believes that she should receive a longer stay, the Court should direct her to make the necessary showing required under the Act. Moreover, Plaintiffs oppose a stay of the entire action for the reasons set forth in the next section.

THE ENTIRE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE STAYED The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act does not require that this entire action be stayed,

adPa tf ops as yo t eteat n T eproeo t A ts t poi fr n ln f poe t fh n r co. h ups fh c i " rv e o, i is a e i i e o d strengthen, and expedite the national defense through protection extended by this Act to servicemembers of the United States to enable such persons to devote their entire energy to the df s nes fh N t n 5 USC A p § 0()e paiadd.T e c ia o" e ne ed o t ao. 0 ... p. 521 ( hs de) h A ts l t e e i " m s s o provide for the temporary suspension of judicial and administrative proceedings and transactions that may adversely affect the civil rights of servicemembers dr gt im la sri . Id. ui h r it y e c " n e ir v e § 502(2) (emphasis added). Accord Boone v. Lightner, 319 U.S. 561, 575 (1943), reh' denied, g 320 U.S. 809 (1943) (interpreting predecessor statute to Section 522); Marriage of Bradley, 282 Kan. at 9, 137 P.3d at 1033. Thus, the benefits of the Act accrue solely to servicemembers. Non-servicemember defendants are not entitled to protection under the Act. In Keefe v. Spangenberg, 533 F. Supp. 49 (W.D. Okla. 1981), the plaintiff brought suit against a United States Marine and the City of Oklahoma City. Both defendants filed a joint Motion to Suspend Legal Proceedings and sought a stay of proceedings for approximately three

-3P A N IF ' E P N ET O D RT S O C U E Case No.: C-07-04946 JSW L I TF S R S O S O R E O H W A S /

Case 3:07-cv-04946-JSW

Document 31

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

years until the serviceman was to be discharged. The court rejected the motion as to both df dn adcn ne t cs ol oe ot I r et gt Ct s ru eto a t e nat n ot ud h ae ny n m n . n e cn h i ' a m n fr s y e s i e h j i e y g a bsdo t A tt C ut a i" nst th df dn City of Oklahoma City has no ae n h c h or si t f d h t e nat e , e d i a e e s ni t i oeh poios fh A t Id. at 49. t d gon k t rv i o t c" a n v e sn e . In this case, all defendants other than PFC Lau are either civilians or corporations. None of them is in the military. Accordingly, the Act is not intended to prevent actions against them. Moreover, the Act is not intended to protect these non-servicemember defendants merely due to the accident that a co-defendant is a servicemember. Just as the defendant City of Oklahoma in Keefe could not invoke the protections of the Act to stay the case against it during its codf dn s e o o m la sri ,h C uthu ntt t ete co udrh A t e nat pr d f it y e c t orsol o s y h n r at n ne t c e ' i ir v e e d a e i i e for the benefit of the non-servicemember defendants. To the contrary, the Court should limit its stay to PFC Lau. Finally, a stay of the entire action would be manifestly unjust to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are individuals and a small business in the Chinese community in the San Francisco Area that invested large sums of money with Defendants for foreign currec t d gbth D f dn ' ny r i , u t e nat an e e s oe t nw s hl f uu n adD f dn s l Pa tf m ny It C utt sh pr i a w o y r dl t n e nat t e ln f ' oe. fh ors y t ao l a e, e so i is e a e ete co, ln f 'eoe aa st D f dn w ogorw u b dl e fr tes n rat nPa tf r vr gi th e nat rnde ol e e yd o al t i i i is c y n e e s d a a 90 days and perhaps longer if the Court approved an extension of the stay. Staying the entire case would serve only to benefit the Defendant wrongdoers merely because of the happenstance that one of their co-defendants joined the military. The Court should not permit such an unjust result.

-4P A N IF ' E P N ET O D RT S O C U E Case No.: C-07-04946 JSW L I TF S R S O S O R E O H W A S /

Case 3:07-cv-04946-JSW

Document 31

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 5 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IV.

CONCLUSION For these reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs do not oppose to a stay in this action as to

PFC Lau, but request that the Court limit any stay to PFC Lau and reject any stay of the entire action. Respectfully Submitted, COOKE, KOBRICK, & WU LLP Dated: December 21, 2007 /s/ By: STEPHEN S. WU Attorneys for Plaintiffs

-5P A N IF ' E P N ET O D RT S O C U E Case No.: C-07-04946 JSW L I TF S R S O S O R E O H W A S /

Case 3:07-cv-04946-JSW

Document 31

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 6 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen S. Wu, declare: I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. I am an attorney in the law firm of Cooke Kobrick & Wu LLP, 177 Bovet Road, Suite 600, San Mateo, CA 94402. On December 21, 2007, I served Defendants Wei-Man Raymond Tse, Jian Xiao, Victor So, Molly Lau, Bill Shu Wai Ma, Christ Investment Service Inc., and CIS Service, Inc. with this P A N IF ' E P N ET O D R T S O C U EA T WH S A S O L L I TF S R S O S O R E O H W A S S O Y TY H UD NOT BE GRANTED by placing a true copy thereof, first class postage prepaid, in the United States mail, for delivery to the following Defendants at the following addresses: Mr. Wei-Man Raymond Tse 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94111 Mr. Victor So c/o Legendary Palace 708 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94607 Mr. Bill Shu Wai Ma Christ Investment Service Inc. CIS Service, Inc. 1945 Kirkham Street San Francisco, CA 94122 Mr. Jian Xiao 737 Chester Street Oakland, CA 94607 Captain Shelley Ginsberg, Esquire Camp Casey Legal Assistance Office Camp Casey, South Korea APO AP 96224 Counsel for PFC Molly Lau Ms. Run Ping Zhou South China Investment Inc. 3567 Kimberly Road Cameron Park, CA 95682

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: December 21, 2007. /s/ STEPHEN S. WU

-6P A N IF ' E P N ET O D RT S O C U E Case No.: C-07-04946 JSW L I TF S R S O S O R E O H W A S /