Md-7 Us Group, Inc vs. Tai LamMotion to Deem Answers AdmittedCal. Super. - 4th Dist.May 9, 201120 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Jonathan T. Nguyen Superior Court of California, State Bar No. 169056 County of Orange GILBERT & NGUYEN 05/06/2016 at 10:37:00 PI 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2000 El Segundo, California 90245 (310) 662-4718 jon@gnlaw.org Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants TAI LAM (aka TAI QUOC LAM aka TONY LAM), an individual; THU CHAU (aka JUDY CHAU), an individual; LA CAVIAR USA, INC., a Nevada Corporation; LA CAVIAR COSMEUTICAL, INC., a California Corporation Clerk of the Superior Court By Brma Castle, Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE MD-7 US GROUP, INC. a California corporation; LINH H. CAO (a.k.a. TONY | CASE NO. 30-2011-00473529 CAO), an individual; JULIE BUI, an individual; and EMILY TRAN, an Assigned for all purposes to Department individual, C25, The Honorable Sheila Fell, Judge Presiding Unlimited Jurisdiction Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ / CROSS- ve COMPLAINANTS MOTION TO DEEM FACTS ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF TALLAN (aha "TATQUOC LAM aoa. 5285.00; DECLARATION OF an individual; CAVIAR USA, INC., a Hawaii corporation; LA CAVIAR COSMECUTICAL, INC. a Hearing Date: July 13, 2016 California corporation, and DOES 1 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. through 100, inclusive, Dept: C-25 Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION /17/ /17/ i MOTION TO DEEM FACTS ADMITTED 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants and Cross-Complainants TAI LAM and THU CHAU ("Defendants") hereby move for an order TO DEEM FACTS ADMITTED against Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant LINH. H. CAO (“CAO”) because CAO waived the right to make objections to the requests for admission and that the requests should be deemed admitted. See CCP § 2033.280(a) [party that does not respond to RFAs waives objections to them] and CCP §2033.280(b)[the motion can be based on the ground that the responding party served no response]. Defendants also move the Court for an order for Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant LINH H. CAO and his counsel, Wayne Brosman to pay monetary sanctions in the sum of $2,985.00 as reasonable attorneys fees incurred by Defendants/Cross-Complainants in bringing this instant motion. CCP 2033.280(c). This motion is based upon the attached supporting memorandum, and the Declaration of Jonathan T. Nguyen, Exhibits A through E. This motion will also be based on the pleadings, papers, records on file with the court, and such oral, documentary and other evidence as the Court may see fit to hear at the hearing of this motion. DATED: May 6, 2016 GILBERT & NGUYEN /s/ Jonathan T. Nguyen By: Jonathan T. Nguyen, Esq. Attorney for Defendants /Cross- Complainants ii MOTION TO DEEM FACTS ADMITTED 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM I. INTRODUCTION This case arises from a dispute between the parties over a distribution agreement, involving a skin care line. The procedural history of this case is quite long, spans several years, and involves a trial court verdict, an order granting a new trial, and an appeal. Currently at issue in this motion is Defendants” Request For Admissions served on January 8, 2016. The Moving Party has made four (4) requests for the response, but thus far, Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant LINH H. CAO and his counsel have completely ignored. As the Court's file reflects, the Moving Party made at least five (5) attempts to get IRS Form 2553 that Plaintiff CAO filed with the IRS. Even though this form has always been readily available in Plaintiff's possession, all attempts to avoid seeking judicial intervention were ignored by CAO and his counsel. Therefore, the Moving Party was forced to file a motion to compel (heard on March 23, 2016). Only at which time, Plaintiff counsel provided the verified response. This document is quite critical to the case because it will show that the Defendants Tony Lam and Judy Chau never agreed to form a partnership with Plaintiffs. This was a major issue at trial as Plaintiffs argued that a partnership formed between them and Defendants, although the Distribution Agreement is quite clear that no partnership was ever formed. The IRS Form 2553 requires that Defendants disclose the names of all shareholders, and that each shareholder sign a shareholder consent. Via this form, Defendants can show that only the plaintiffs, and not the defendants, had any partnership. It will show that Defendants did not ever sign IRS Form 2553. When the Moving Party finally received a “courtesy” copy of the IRS Form 25531, the Request For Admissions was propounded to get an admission from Mr. Cao himself that the Moving Party’s signature on said form was forged by Mr. Cao and that Mr. Cao knowingly filed a forged document with the IRS. This admission addresses a significant ! Plaintiff refused to provide the properly verified discovery response until the Court granted the motion to compel. 1 MOTION TO DEEM FACTS ADMITTED 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 trialable issue, which lead to the appeal and reversal of the prior jury trial verdict. In this motion, the Moving Party is seeking an Order deeming facts admitted because CAO failed to provide the response to the RFA. On Marcy 23, 2016, the Court granted the Motion To Compel Production of IRS Form 2553, but denied request for sanction because the Moving Party made a technical error of only asking for sanction against counsel who substituted out for a few months instead of the actual party. The Court indicated that the Court will remember the time, effort and costs expended to get this single item of discovery if another motion to compel had to be filed in this case. So here we are again, the Moving Party is facing the same stonewalled tactic causing significant delay, time, effort and costs on the Moving Party. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS CAO was served with Request For Admissions And Ignored It. On January 8, 2016, the Moving Party propounded and served the Request For Admissions (“RFA”) on Mr. Cao at his home address because at which time, his counsel substituted himself out of the case for a short period leaving CAO to be a self- represented litigant. When plaintiff counsel Wayne Brosman substituted himself back into the case as counsel of record again, I emailed (March 23, 2016) another copy of the RFA to Mr. Brosman and offered to give Mr. Brosman and his client additional time to respond. Mr. Brosman received and replied to the email but ignored this “meet and confer” attempt (Exhibit B). Not having received a response, on April 4, 2016, I emailed Mr. Brosman again and asked him to provide me with the estimated time of arrival of his client responses to the RFA (Exhibit C). Again, no response. On April 19, 2016, I advised Mr. Brosman that this is my final attempt to “meet and confer” and I provided Mr. Brosman with another copy of the RFA (Exhibits D and E). As of this date, I have not received the response to the RFA, or a request for additional time to do so. 2 MOTION TO DEEM FACTS ADMITTED 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sanctions is Warranted. I have spent 4.0 hours in drafting the meet and confer letter, and this motion. It is anticipated that counsel for the Moving Party will spend another hour in preparing a Reply to Opposition, if any, and another 1.5 hours of time in court. Id. Counsel's time is billed at $450.00 per hour. The filing fee is $60.00. Therefore, it is anticipated that this instant motion will cost the Moving Party 6.5 hours at $450.00 per hour. In sum, then, Defendants seek sanctions in the amount of $2,985.00. III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. An Order Granting This Motion To Deem Facts Admitted Is Appropriate Because Plaintiff Has Completely Ignored The Moving Party’s Valid Request, And Three Good Faith Meet And Confer Letters. Request for admission can produce incontrovertible evidence against the responding party. Murillo vs. Superior Ct. (4th Dist. 2006) 143 Cal. App.4th 730, 736. Requests for admission have a function similar to that of a pretrial conference - they narrow the issues to save the time and expense of preparing unnecessary proof. Burch v. Gombos (6th Dist. 2000) 82 Cal. App.4th 352, 359. The responding party must serve its response within 30 days after the requests for admission were served on the party. CCP § 2033.250(a). The responding party can object to requests for admission that do not comply with the form and content required under CCP § 2033.060. If any party does not serve a timely response to a request for admission, it waives all objections to the request, including objections based on privilege or work product. CCP § 2033.280(a). The Moving Party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the RFA be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). CCP § 2033.280 (b) and (c). Brigante v. Huang (2d Dist. 1993) 20 Cal. App.4th 1569, 1584 (no time specified for bringing motion to deem RFAs admitted). The RFA seeks, among other things an admission that CAO, who signed IRS Form 2553 under the penalty of perjury as Chief Executive Officer, that he forged the Moving Party's signature without her consent, which is a crucial element of the trial. 3 MOTION TO DEEM FACTS ADMITTED 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The RFA, states: 1. Admit that the attached form 2553 - Election by a Small Business Corporation is a true and correct copy of the actual form 2553 you filed with the Department of the Treasury. Admit that you signed your name to the attached form 2553 - Election by a Small Business Corporation on May 10, 2011. Admit that Judy T. Chau did not sign the attached form 2553 - Election by a Small Business Corporation. Admit that you did not have permission to sign Judy T. Chau’s name on the attached attached form 2553 - Election by a Small Business Corporation. Admit that you signed Judy T. Chau’s name to the attached attached form 2553 - Election by a Small Business Corporation. Admit that Trung Hoa Tran did not sign the attached attached form 2553 - Election by a Small Business Corporation. Admit that you signed Trung Hoa Tran’s name to the attached attached form 2553 - Election by a Small Business Corporation. B. An Order Granting Sanctions Is Appropriate Because Plaintiff Refusal To Cooperate With The Discovery Process Is Not Substantially Justified And Because Plaintiff is Engaging In Gamesmanship. Because Plaintiffs have abused the discovery process, sanctions are appropriate. Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.010 allows for the mandatory award of sanctions in the instance of the misuse of the discovery process: Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: ...b) Using a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures. (c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense... (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery... 4 MOTION TO DEEM FACTS ADMITTED 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (i) Failing to confer in person, by telephone, or by letter with an opposing party or attorney in a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve informally any dispute concerning discovery, if the section governing a particular discovery motion requires the filing of a declaration stating facts showing that an attempt at informal resolution has been made. Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010. Plaintiffs” refusal to respond to the request is willful, and without substantial justification. Thus, sanctions are appropriate. Monetary discovery sanctions are mandatory. Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal. App.4th 1173, 1179; Frates v. Treder (1967) 249 Cal. App.2d 199, 206. Here, despite three separate attempts to meet and confer, CAO and his counsel continue to ignore the RFA so the Moving Party must, once again, be forced to file another motion and wait more than 2 months for a hearing. Plaintiffs and their counsel have used this gamesmanship and delay tactic before as demonstrated in the most recent motion to compel that was heard on March 23, 2016. Despite the Court's warning, here we are again on this simple RFA resulting in approximately 6 months of waiting time (propounded in January 2016 and hearing is set for July 13, 2016). The Moving Party is deprived of their right to conduct discovery at every turn of the case. This is the very type of gamesmanship that the Code of Civil Procedure seeks to prevent. The conduct is intentional and deliberate justifying an order awarding sanctions against both CAO and his counsel, Mr. Brosman. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the above-referenced arguments, Defendants request that the Court grant their motion to deem facts admitted in RFA 1 through 7, and the request for monetary sanctions against both CAO and his counsel in the sum of $2,985.00. DATED: May 6, 2016 GILBERT & NGUYEN By: /s/ Jonathan T. Nguyen Jonathan T. Nguyen, Esq. Attorney for Defendants/Cross- Complainants TAI LAM, THU CHAU 5 MOTION TO DEEM FACTS ADMITTED 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN T. NGUYEN I, Jonathan Nguyen declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law, admitted to practice in the State of California, and the principal attorney of Gilbert & Nguyen, attorneys of record for Cross- Complainants and Defendants in the action entitled MD-7 US GROUP, INC., v. TAI LAM, et al., and its related action I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and, if called to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto. I make this declaration in support of Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ (hereinafter “Defendants”) motion to DEEM FACTS ADMITTED. On January 8, 2016, I served a copy of the Request For Admissions on Plaintiff LINH H. CAO, aka TONY CAO as he was a self-represented litigant. A true and correct copy of the Request For Admissions is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. Mr. Wayne Brosman served as trial counsel representing plaintiffs and cross- defendants, including Mr. Linh Cao throughout the first jury trial. Mr. Brosman substituted-out leaving plaintiffs and cross-defendants to represent themselves as self-represented litigants for a couple months. However, Mr. Brosman filed the substitution of counsel and came back in as counsel of record in on or around March 2, 2016. On March 23, 2016, Mr. Brosman appeared at the hearing of the Motion To Compel Production of a single item (IRS Form 2553) as counsel of record for all plaintiffs, including Mr. Linh H. Cao. On March 23, 2016, I advised Mr. Brosman via email that the responses to the RFA were past due. I offered to give Mr. Brosman and his client additional time if needed. I also emailed Mr. Brosman a PDF copy directly from my computer as a professional courtesy gently reminding counsel that the responses were past due. Within minutes of my email, Mr. Brosman acknowledged receipt of same but did not respond whether or not he needed more time and more importantly, no responses were ever provided. A true and correct copy of my March 23, 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 2016 email is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B. On April 4, 2016, I asked Mr. Brosman (also via email) the estimated time of arrival of the responses to the RFA. Again, I did not receive a response. A true and correct copy of the April 4, 2016 email is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit C. On April 19, 2016, as a final attempt to meet and confer, I emailed Mr. Brosman and asked that the responses be provided within ten (10) days. I also forewarned Mr. Brosman that I will have no choice but to file a motion to deem facts admitted and request sanctions if I do not get the responses within ten days. A true and correct copy of the April 19, 2016 email is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit D. On April 19, 2016, within a few minutes of sending Mr. Brosman the final “meet and confer” email, I emailed Mr. Brosman another copy of the RFA just as a precaution because in the past, Mr. Brosman stated that my emails were marked as “junk” by his server; therefore, he didn’t get them. A true and correct copy of the second April 19, 2016 email is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit E. As of the today, I have not received any response (or objection) to the RFA from CAO. Despite the three attempts to “meet and confer” (Exhibits B,C,D and E), the Moving Party is forced to incur legal fees and costs bringing this motion. I have been in practice for over 21 years. I have tried numerous cases to verdict and I also have a LLM degree in business and taxation. I have spent 4.0 hours in drafting the meet and confer letter, and this motion. It is anticipated that that I will spend another hour in preparing a Reply to Opposition, if any, and another 1.5 hours of time in court. Id. My hourly rate on this case is $450.00. The filing fee is $60.00. Therefore, it is anticipated that this instant motion will cost Defendants 6.5 hours at $450.00 per hour. In sum, then, Defendants seek sanctions in the amount of $2,985.00. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 6th day of May 2016 in El Segundo, California. /s/ Jonathan T. Nguyen By: Jonathan Nguyen, Declarant PROOF OF SERVICE C.C.P. §1013(a), C.R.C. 2003(3), 2005(i) I am employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., 20th Floor, El Segundo, CA 90245. On May 6, 2016, I served the foregoing document described as DEFENDANTS’ /CROSS-COMPLAINANTS” MOTION TO DEEM FACTS ADMITTED; DECLARATION OF JONATHAN T. NGUYEN; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,985.00; EXHIBITS A TO E on the interested parties in said action by placing a true X] copy [_] original thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Wayne Bennett Brosman, Esq. Law Offices of Wayne Bennett Brosman 800 W. Sixth Street, Suite 320 Los Angeles, California 90017 wbrosman@brosmanlaw.com [] (By Mail) I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be laced in the United States srl at Los Angeles, California. I am “readily amiliar” with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [1] (By Personal Service) I personally served opposing counsel at the hearing of the ex parte application at the courthouse, in the courtroom where this case is set for hearing. X (By Email) - I personally transmitted via electronic means to the electronic mail address(es) noted above a true and correct copy of the aforementioned document(s) from bruinesq@gnlaw.org on the date ascribed below. The transmission was reported as complete without error. I am aware that the form of original signature must be maintained and must be available for review and copying on the request of the court or any party to this action. [CRC 2060(c)] I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 6, 2016, at Los Angeles, California. /s/ Jonathan T. Nguyen Jonathan T. Nguyen EXHIBIT - A 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Jonathan T. Nguyen State Bar No. 169056 GILBERT & NGUYEN 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2000 El Segundo, California 90245 (310) 662-4718 jon@gnlaw.org Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants TAI LAM (aka TAI QUOC LAM aka TONY LAM), an individual; THU CHAU (aka JUDY CHAU), an individual; LA CAVIAR, USA INC, a Hawaii Corporation; LA CAVIAR USA, INC., a Nevada Corporation; LA CAVIAR COSMEUTICAL, INC,, a California Corporation SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE MD-7 US GROUP, INC. a California corporation; LINH H. CAO (a.k.a. TONY | CASE NO. 30-2011-00473529 CAO), an individual; JULIE BUI, an Helv qe and EMILY TRAN, an Assigned for all purposes to Department InavIcuUas, C25, The Honorable Sheila Fell, Judge Presiding Unlimited Jurisdiction Plaintiffs, vs REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TAI LAM (a.k.a. “TAI QUOC LAM” a.k.a. “TONY LAM”) an individual, THU CHAU (a.k.a. “JUDY CHAU”), an individual; LA CAVIAR USA, INC., a Hawaii corporation; LA CAVIAR COSMECUTICAL, INC. a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION PROPOUNDING PARTY: TONY LAM RESPONDING PARTY: LINH H. CAO, aka TONY CAO /17/ i REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO PLAINTIFFS/ CROSS-DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD: In accordance with the provisions of Section 2033.010 et seq. of the California Code of Civil Procedure, you are requested to affirmatively admit or deny under oath, the following Requests for Admissions, within the time provided by law: 1. Admit that the attached form 2553 - Election by a Small Business Corporation is a true and correct copy of the actual form 2553 you filed with the Department of the Treasury. 2. Admit that you signed your name to the attached form 2553 - Election by a Small Business Corporation on May 10, 2011. 3. Admit that Judy T. Chau did not sign the attached form 2553 - Election by a Small Business Corporation. 4. Admit that you did not have permission to sign Judy T. Chau’s name on the attached attached form 2553 - Election by a Small Business Corporation. 5. Admit that you signed Judy T. Chau’s name to the attached attached form 2553 - Election by a Small Business Corporation. 6. Admit that Trung Hoa Tran did not sign the attached attached form 2553 - Election by a Small Business Corporation. 7. Admit that you signed Trung Hoa Tran’s name to the attached attached form 2553 - Election by a Small Business Corporation. DATED: January 8, 2016 GILBERT & By: oD J Jgrfathan T. Nguyen, Esq. Attorney for Defendants /Cross- Complainants ii REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE C.C.P. §1013(a), C.R.C. 2003(3), 2005(i) I am employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within entitled action. My business address is 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., 20th Floor, El Segundo, CA 90245. On January 8, 2016, I served the foregoing document described as REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS on the interested parties in said action by placing a true [X] copy [] original thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: MD-7 US Group, Inc. Attn: Paul Ngo Liem Cao 4575 Ponderosa Way 4575 Ponderosa Way Yorba Linda, CA 92886-3264 Yorba Linda, CA 92886-3264 Emily Tran Paul Ngo 4575 Ponderosa Way 4575 Ponderosa Way Yorba Linda, CA 92886-3264 Yorba Linda, CA 92886-3264 Julie Bui Linh H. Cao 4575 Ponderosa Way 4575 Ponderosa Way Yorba Linda, CA 92886-3264 Yorba Linda, CA 92886-3264 XI (By Mail) I caused such envelope with postage thereon fully prepal to be places in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California. am “readily amiliar” with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [1] (By Email) - I personally transmitted via electronic means to the electronic mail address(es) noted above a true and correct copy of the aforementioned document(s) from bruinesq@gnlaw.org on the date ascribed below. The transmission was reported as complete without error. I am aware that the form of original signature must be maintained and must be available for review and copying on the request of the court or any party to this action. [CRC 2060(c)] I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 8, 2016, at Los Angeles, Joathan T. Nguyen PROOF OF SERVICE MD-7 US GROUP, INC v. LAM ET AL. Fax: +1 (213) 639-0281 age 2 of 3 12/04/2015 3:38 PM From: iBlanc Inc JFax: (855) 825-9579 CT To ) P : wp da 14 By wi So riecuion ny a Dan BUSINGLD eu put aril he To (Rav. Decsmbarzoar) - | {Under section 1362 of the Internal Revenue Code) CE OMB NG. 1645-0146 Oaparinent of Tnstity to, ) b- See Parts tl and {il on page a and the separate Instructions. ‘tnternl Revaous Service | > The corporation can fax this form to the IRS (see separate instructions), sts are mel under Who May Elect on page 1 of the Instructions, all Nolo, This election to be an & sorporation can be accapiad only If an the t e i shareholders hava signed the consent slatament; an officer has signed below, and the exact:name and address ol the corporation ang other : required {orm Information are provided. cod on Bug EHR BL Tete, ET i {ill Election Information RE, ONSEN | Name (sve Insiniclions) ) A Ervployer idenlfication number. - | . MD-7 US GROUP, INC, 27 1 3205681 i Type ” Number, slieal,'and room or sufle ria, {Il a P.O. box, sep Insiuictions) ) . 1B Dale insorporalad hE . or Print | 1241 N. Lakeview Ave. #G_ dE in Cl 08/10/2010 HS | City or fown, slale, and ZIP code Cc State of Incorporalion Co : ; he | Anaheim, CA 92807 Catifornia | D Check the applicable box(es) If the corporation, after applying for the EIN shown in A above, changed Its [7] name or [J] address | = E Election is to be effective for tax year beginning (month, day, year) (see instructions) . LB 08 / U1 / 2010 i Caution. A corporation (antity) making the slscllon for Its first tax year in existence will u sually enter the i beginning date of a short tax year that begins on a date other than January 1. i F Solected tax year: (1) #¥] Calendar year | (?) [7] Fiscal year ending (month and day) b _ + { @).[] 52-53-wask year ending with reference to the month of December tm) [] 52-53-week year ending with reference to the month of » oo ; If box (2) or (4) is checked, completa Part II j Gi mora than 100 shareholders are listed for tem J (see page 2), check this box if treating members of a family as one | shareholder results in no more than 100 shareholders (see test 2 under Who May Elect in the instructions) » [J ; H Name and title of officer or legal representative who the IRS may call for more i nformation |! Telephone number of afficer i Linh H. Cao, CEO ’ or legal representa tive | { 714 ) 345-1723 ! It this 8 corporation election Is being filed with Form 112085, | declare that | had r easonable cause for not filing Form 2553 timely, and if this election is made by an entity eligible lo elect to bs treate d as a corporation, J'declare that | also had | reasonable cause for not filing an entity classification election timely. See below for my explanation of the reasons the i sleGtion or elections were not made on time (see instructions). " | - ; * i | ~ 1 TE barcusmonmmlnes enim BASE Fy ieocosioms wrselt ER Ems soos ies wom BERE DREGE Weems frond ; serps i eeeveveeueseaseteseRsEsSemeeneeaeen E ee ete S Tso nT rn i Under penallies of peggry, | declare hat | have examined this elati on, Including accompanying schedules and statements, and fo the bast of my knowledge ams ballef, tls : ! Sign true, corracl and © ps | Herel) ___ YN Ne? BRED |, onl _shisli oh Fighatfe &F officer Title Data I For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see separate Instructions. Gal. No. 18628R Form 2553 (Rav. 12-2007) - - i | . . _ | Page 3 of 3 12/04/2015 3:38 PM From: iBlanc Inc Fax: (856) 825-9579 To: Fax: +1 (213) 689-0281 a ) L] Form 2553 (Rav, 12-2007) Page lasik Election Information (continued) > EL L : . i address : Shareholders’ Consent Statement. & Hams and address of each ‘Under penalties of perjury, we declare hat we consent lo the Stock owned or ) . shareholder or former election of the above-named corporatioti lo be corporation | Percentage of ownership M CON shareholder required to under seclion 1362(a) and that vie have exdmifacl.this consent (see instructions) Social security Shareholders ronsent to the election. statement, including accompanying schedulés.ani a number or employer | ax vear ends (See the instructions for | and Lo the best of aur knowledge and belie, it identification number month and column K) complete. We understand our consent is bind 0 Number of ) (see instructions) a withdrawn after the corporation has made a valid el shares or Date(s) ” ay) Co and date below.) percentage | acquired 5 Signature a af i Linh H. Cao i x 1 08/01/10 207) 1 - en 28% 586-52-2360 | 12/31 Liem H. Cao a / ° rs - zh 8/01/10 Comme (TF 4 MU i$ 7 i _ 8% 586-52-7355 12/31 3 Paul T. Ngo 7 . 7 A | od 08/01/10 ad Pld yg wrote: Wayne: Please let this be my attempt to meet and confer on the past due responses to my Request For Admissions served on your clients on January 8, 2016. A copy of the RFA is attached. Let me know how much time you will need to provide me with the verified response. Thank you. Jonathan T. Nguyen, Esq. GILBERT & NGUYEN Pacific Corporate Towers 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd, 20th Floor El Segundo, California 90245 Main: 310.552.9001 | Direct: 310.662.4718 www.gnlaw.org | jon@ gnlaw.org On Mar 23, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Jonathan T. Nguyen wrote: | do NOT have the response. You faxed me a copy of the form without a formal response (not a verified response that the form faxed over IS the true and correct copy of the form filed with the IRS). Jonathan T. Nguyen, Esq. GILBERT & NGUYEN Pacific Corporate Towers 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd, 20th Floor El Segundo, California 90245 Main: 310.552.9001 | Direct: 310.662.4718 www.gnlaw.org | jon@gnlaw.org On Mar 23, 2016, at 4:37 PM, Wayne Brosman wrote: | just saw this. Don’t you have the responses without objections? | don’t want to agree on a further order since | sent them to you. Wayne From: Jonathan T. Nguyen [mailto:jon@gnlaw.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 10:08 AM To: Wayne Brosmanb Subject: MD-7 Judge is NOT in so do you want to accept the tentative ruling? Jonathan T. Nguyen, Esq. GILBERT & NGUYEN Pacific Corporate Towers 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd, 20th Floor El Segundo, California 90245 Main: 310.552.9001 | Direct: 310.662.4718 www.gnlaw.org | jon@gnlaw.org <2033 REQ 1-8-16.pdf> EXHIBIT - C From: Jonathan T. Nguyen jon@gnlaw.org Subject: MD-7 vs. Lam Date: April 4, 2016 at 10:59 AM To: Wayne Brosman wbrosman@brosmanlaw.com Wayne: | called the court so the hearing (April 6, 2016) re compliance is taken OFF calendar. Please let me know what's the ETA of your clients’ responses to the Request For Admissions is. Thank you. Jonathan Nguyen EXHIBIT - D From: Jonathan T. Nguyen jon@gnlaw.org Subject: MD-7 vs. Lam Date: April 19,2016 at 12:28 PM To: Wayne Brosman wbrosman@brosmanlaw.com Wayne: As you are aware, we served your clients with a copy of the Request For Admissions (RFA) on January 8, 2016. This RFA contains only seven (7) requests. Since your clients did not respond, all assertable objections have been deemed waived. On March 23, 2016 (5:06 p.m.), | sent you a copy of the RFA just in case your clients did not inform you of said outstanding RFA served on January 8, 2016. | asked if you needed additional time to respond. response from you or your clients regarding this issue. If you recall, | made several requests for the fax form 2553 and as a result of the silent treatment | received | was forced to file a motion to compel. | am asking one more time whether or not your clients will serve the verified responses, without objections, within ten days from today? This is my final attempt to meet and confer before bringing a motion to deem the facts admitted and for sanctions. Thank you. Jonathan T. Nguyen, Esq. GILBERT & NGUYEN Pacific Corporate Towers 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd, 20th Floor El Segundo, California 90245 Main: 310.552.9001 | Direct: 310.662.4718 www.gnlaw.org | jon@gnlaw.org EXHIBIT - E From: Jonathan T. Nguyen jon@gnlaw.org & Subject: MD-7 vs. Lam Date: April 19,2016 at 12:41 PM To: Wayne Brosman wbrosman@brosmanlaw.com, Wayne Brosman wbrosman@ryan-lawfirm.com Wayne: Here’s a SECOND copy of the RFA that was served on January 8, 2016 for your file, which contains my signature on the proof of service. The first copy | sent to you as a COURTESY was an attachment from my computer (which didn’t have my signature on the proof of service). [J] Jonathan T. Nguyen, Esq. GILBERT & NGUYEN Pacific Corporate Towers 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd, 20th Floor El Segundo, California 90245 Main: 310.552.9001 | Direct: 310.662.4718 www.gnlaw.org | jon@gnlaw.org
