This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 03/07/2018 at 19:47:47 (UTC).

Say Lee vs George Lee

Case Summary

On 03/24/2014 Say Lee filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against George Lee. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Ikeda, Dale, Snauffer, Mark and Snauffer, Mark W. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0843

  • Filing Date:

    03/24/2014

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Ikeda, Dale

Snauffer, Mark

Snauffer, Mark W

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Lee, Say Dang

Xiong, Chu

Defendants

Lee, George Tong

Lee, Vah Houa

Lee, Ge

Lee, Kathy Maiker

Lee, Yeng Yang

Lee, Fue Sue

Lee, Yang

Testate and Intestate successors of Yeng Yang Lee deceased

Lee, Yee

Lee, Her

All other persons unknown, claiming legal or equitable right, title, estate lien or interest in the property

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Reich, Jeff

The Reich Law Firm 8441 North Millbrook Ste 104

Fresno, CA 93720

Reich, Jeffrey Kane

Defendant Attorneys

Lee, Vah Houa

Abrams, Robert C

Lee, Ge

Lee, Fue Sue

Lor, Kou

 

Court Documents

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Comment: in Support of Motion For Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

Declaration Filed

Declaration of Demurring Party in Support of Automatic Extension; Comment: Declaration of Demurring Party in Support of Automatic Extension

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: Certificate of Mailing Attached

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Comment: Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint

Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing; Comment: Case Management Conference on 3/28/16 at 9:00 am in Department 104

Notice of Change of Address Filed

Notice of Change of Address Filed

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Request to Enter Default

Request to Enter Default; Comment: ****SET ASIDE PER TR 11/21/17****

Request to Enter Default

Request to Enter Default; Comment: ****SET ASIDE PER TR 11/21/17****

Substitution of Attorney Filed

Substitution of Attorney; Comment: Old Attorney: Pro per New Attorney:Robert C. Abrams

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment; Comment: attached certificate of mailing

Motion filed

Motion; Comment: Notice and Motion to Amend Complaint

Proof of Service

Proof of Service; Comment: Proof of Service

List filed

Defendants' Exhibits List.pdf; Comment: Defendants' Exhibits List

Proof of Service

Proof of Service; Comment: by publication - summons and amendment to complaint. first day of publication May 4, 2015

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Declaration Filed

Declaration Filed; Comment: regarding Order to Show Cause, set for 5-7-15

Order filed

Civil Document; Comment: Order for publication of summons as to defendant Yeng Yang Lee- Granted. Summons to be served by publication in The Business Journal.

47 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/09/2018
  • Motion - Sanctions- Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 3:28 PM; Comment: Robert Abrams

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • Motion - Amend- Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 3:28 PM; Comment: Jeff Reich second amended complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • Case Management Conference- Judicial Officer: Snauffer, Mark; Hearing Time: 3:28 PM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order Received for Signature- Proposed Order; Comment: Proposed Order (Pending Until Hearing)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Memorandum of Points and Authorities- Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Comment: in Support of Motion For Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration Filed- Declaration; Comment: Declaration of Jeff Reich

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice of Motion- Notice of Motion; Comment: Notice of Motion & Motion For An Order for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service- Proof of Service of CIV-141; Comment: Proof of Service of CIV-141

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/07/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Declaration Filed- Declaration of Demurring Party in Support of Automatic Extension; Comment: Declaration of Demurring Party in Support of Automatic Extension

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service- Proof of Service By First Class Mail - Civil; Comment: First Amended Complaint served (No Summons Listed)

    Read MoreRead Less
148 More Docket Entries
  • 03/06/2018
  • Financial info for Lee, Say Dang: Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • Financial info for Lee, Say Dang: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2017-56405 Lee, Say Dang $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/06/2017
  • Financial info for Lee, Say Dang: Transaction Assessment $60.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2015
  • Financial info for Lee, Say Dang: Counter Payment Receipt # CIVIL-2015-00032800 Reich, Jeff $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/07/2015
  • Financial info for Lee, Say Dang: Transaction Assessment $150.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2015
  • Financial info for Lee, Say Dang: Counter Payment Receipt # 201087 Lee, Say Dang $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2015
  • Financial info for Lee, Say Dang: Transaction Assessment $20.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2014
  • Financial info for Lee, Say Dang: Counter Payment Receipt # 188416 Lee, Say Dang $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2014
  • Financial info for Lee, Say Dang: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/24/2014
  • Financial: Lee, Say Dang; Total Financial Assessment $725.00; Total Payments and Credits $725.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

Fresno, California 93704

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT C. ABRAMS 3412 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 101

o0 ~1 N wn - 2

ROBERT C. ABRAMS, ESQ., SBN: 262947 LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT C. ABRAMS 5412 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 101

Fresno, California 93704

Telephone: (559) 431-9710

Facsimile: (559) 431-4108

Email: bob@rcabramslaw.com

Attorney for Defendants, YANG LEE, FUE SUE LEE, VAH HOUA LEE, GE LEE

E-FILED

11/6/2017 2:23 PM

FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

By: L.Whipple, Deputy

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO, B.F. SISK COURTHOUSE

SAY DANG LEE and CHU XIONG, Plaintiffs, VS.

GEORGE TONG LEE, VAH HOUA LEE, GE LEE, KATHY MAIKER LEE, YENG YANG LEE, FUE SUE LEE, YANG LEE, YEE LEE, HER LEE, and all other persons claiming by, through, or under them: and all other persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in this complaint, which is adverse to Plaintiffs’ title or creates any cloud on Plaintiffs’ title; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

vvvvvvwvvvvvvvvvvvvvvu

Case No. 14CECG00843

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO CODE CIV. PROC. §473(a)(1); CAL. RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.1324

DATE: November 8, 2017 TIME: 3:30 p.m. DEPT.: 501

Judge: Hon. Mark Snauffer

DEFENDANTS’ YANG LEE, FUE SUE LEE, VAH HOUA LEE, and GE LEE

(herein after referred to collectively as “DEFENDANTS”) respectfully submit the following

opposition to PLAINTIFFS® Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to

Amend Complaint.

/1! DEFENDANTS” MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIF FS’ MOTION

Fresno, California 93704

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT C. ABRAMS 5412 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 101

I. INTRODUCTION

The Real Property located at 8207 N. Thompson Clovis, CA (“PROPERTY™) was purchased by the Lee family in 1985. For the past 15 years, the PROPERTY has been the subject of various litigation. In 2002 and in 2004, Plaintiffs were involved in Civil cases re: finances of the PROPERTY. During those cases, Plaintiffs made statements under penalty of perjury disclaiming any and all interest in the PROPERTY and denying they had any ownership to the PROPERTY (RJIN #1, Declaration of Say Dang Lee, Pg. 3, Line 26; RIN#2, Declaration of Say Dang Lee, Pp. 3-4, Lines 28-2; RIN#2, Declaration of Chue Xiong, Pp. 4, Lines 6-8). In this matter Plaintiffs have filed a Verified Complaint contradicting those prior Judicial Declarations and now attempt to amend their Complaint to add their daughter, Chao Lee, as the “Legal Owner” in trust for them, to gain title to a PROPERTY which they have denied ever having owned or held interest in. This is incredible since they made this statement multiple times, under penalty of perjury with translators and have had the same Counsel representing them in each case, including the case at bar.

What Plaintiffs fail to mention in any of their pleadings is that one of the original owners of the PROPERTY was an uncle with the name Chao Lee. That Chaoperson on title originally as a “single man” and later deeded his interest two times, not once as claimed by Plaintiffs.

Several of the Defendants in this matter were the parties to a third action in 2005 which resulted in an appeal and an affirmation by the Fifth District Court of Appeal of California. The Court upheld quiet title of the PROPERTY in the name of Fue Sue Lee, a named Defendant in the Instant case. Fue Sue Lee then conveyed his interest in the PROPERTY to Yang Lee, also a defendant in this case, who has been paying property taxes on the parcel since

DEFENDANTS” MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

Fresno, California 93704

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT C. ABRAMS 5412 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 101

~.] o} Ch e

Defendants, Ge Lee, Va Houa Lee, and Fue Sue Lee, collectively, mailed a letter to opposing Counsel denying having any current interest in the subject property and claiming that the PROPERTY now belongs to Yang Lee. Yang Lee is the sole owner of the PROPERTY.

IL PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Instant Case was filed on March 24, 2014. Defendants retained Counsel Hackar but then did a Substitution of Attorney, retaining Counsel Kou Lor. On October 27, 2017, DEFENDANTS now have retained Robert C. Abrams, Esq. as Counsel. In reviewing the case, it was discovered that Yeng Yang Lee, a named Defendant was deceased. On May 2, 2014, Yee Lee filed a responsive pleading disclaiming any interest in the subject property. In March 2015, both Kathy Maiker Lee and George Tong Lee filed responsive pleadings with the Court disclaiming any and all interest in the subject property. The 2012 deed to Fue Sue Lee, which is on record with the Fresno County Recorder’s Office and held valid by the Fresno County Superior Court and the Fifth District Court of Appeals for California and the deed from Fue Sue Lee to Defendant Yang Lee are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B and incorporated by reference.

III. LAW AND ARGUMENT

A. Exercise of the Court’s Discretion to Allow Amendment to a Pleading Must

be Sound and Reasonable, and May not be Arbitrary or Capricious.

Determination of a Motion to amend pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

section 473(a)(1) is within the trial court’s sound discretion. Verdier v. Verdier (1955) 133

Cal.App 2d 325, 330. However, although a Motion to permit amendment to pleading is within

the Court’s discretion, exercise of this discretion must be sound and reasonable, not arbitrary

and capricious. Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal. App 2d 527, 530.

The Court has discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to

state a valid cause of action. California Casualty General Ins. Co v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 173 CA

3d, 274, 280-281. Such denial is “most appropriate” where the pleading is deficient as a matter

DEFENDANTS* MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

Fresno, California 93704

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT C. ABRAMS 5412 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 101

of law and the defect could not be cured by further appropriate amendment (/d. at 821). The Court also has discretion to deny leave where the proposed amendment omits or contradicts facts pleaded in the original pleading: Vallejo Develop. Co. v. Beck Develop Co. (1994) 24 CA4th 929, 946. In addition, leave to amend may be rejected where the proposed amendment is subject to demurrer. Yee v. Mobilehome Park Rental Review Bd (1998) 62 CA4th 1409, 1429,

Here, the new statements and facts set forth by Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Chao Lee differentiate from the Original Complaint. Chao Lee now claims to be the legal owner as trustee for her parents, the plaintiffs, 15 years after litigation regarding this PROPERTY began. Counsel claims that he was never aware of this issue, situation, or claim to title prior to this Complaint. However, Counsel and his firm have represented Plaintiffs in three (3) separate cases spanning over the last 15 years and as previously stated, Plaintiffs have averred in several judicial pleadings under penalty of perjury they do not have and never have had any interest in the PROPERTY. Now, Plaintiff’s claim in paragraph 6 of the subject Complaint and proposed First Amended Complaint that they are the “beneficial owners™. It is hardly plausible to believe that the subject of title and the existence of Plaintiffs’ daughter’s ciaim was never raised.

Taking all the pleadings on their face in conjunction with the Proposed First Amended Complaint leads to only one conclusion. Plaintiffs are not being truthful nor forthcoming in their filings with the Court and their counsel is evidently being misled. When viewed collectively, the deeds as they stand are valid, which the Fresno County Superior Court and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Appellate District of California also agree upon. The Court should use its discretion and the pleadings and precedence set forth in Case Nos. 02CECG08925, 04CECG02703, as well as 0SCECG03705 (see RIN #1 and 2), which was heard by the Fifth District Court of Appeal as Lee v. Lee (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4% 1553,

B. Plaintiffs’ Alleged “Mistake” was not an ‘Imadvertent Mistake® as

Claimed.

DEFENDANTS® MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS® MOTION

Fresno, California 93704

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT C. ABRAMS 5412 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 101

“Inadvertence is defined as lack of heedfulness or attentiveness, inattention, fault from negligence; and, in the abstract, is no plea on which to vacate a default.” Baratti v. Baratti (1952) Cal. App.2d 917. “Inadvertence in the abstract is no plea upon which to set aside a default but the Court must be informed of the reasons for the inadvertence; if satisfactory, the Court will relieve, but if the inadvertence is wholly inexcusable, as if it arises from gross negligence, the Court will not look upon it kindly. Shearman v. Jorgensen (1985) 106 Cal. 483.

Plaintiffs actions over the past three years constitute behavior that is ‘wholly inexcusable’. In 2002, Plaintiffs’ Counsel represented both Plaintiffs, Say Dang Lee and Chue Xiong, in Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 02CECL08925. In this case, both Plaintiffs signed and filed Declarations under penalty of perjury (see RIN 1). Point 11(g) of Say Dang Lee’s Declaration states the following: “I have never owned real property at 8207 N. Thompson Avenue, Clovis, California.” (RJN #1, Declaration of Say Dang Lee, Pg. 3, Line 26). This is the address of the PROPERTY in question. This Declaration was signed by both Say Dang Lee and a translator, Cha Yang, on February 3, 2004.

Chue Xiong also signed and submitted a Declaration under penalty of perjury. Point 11(g) of his Declaration stated: “I have never owned real property located at 8207 N. Thompson Avenue, Clovis, CA.” (RIN 1, Declaration of Chue Xiong, Pg. 3, Line 27). This is the address of the PROPERTY in question. This Declaration was signed by both Chue Xiong and a translator, Cha Yang, on February 3, 2004.

Plaintiffs’ Counsel filed both of these Declarations on behalf of his Clients in the aforementioned case on February 17, 2004. In 2004, Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 04CECGO02703, both Plaintiffs again filed Declarations. In each of these Declarations, under item 10(g), the following is claimed: “I have never owned real property located at 8207 N. Thompson Avenue, Clovis, ... .” (RIN#2, Declaration of Say Dang Lee, Pp. 3-4, Lines 28-2; RIN#2, Declaration of Chue Xiong, Pp. 4, Lines 6-8).

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

Fresno, California 93704

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT C. ABRAMS 5412 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 101

e 0 ON b

Plaintiff’s should therefore not be afforded the opportunity to waste the valuable resources of this Court to now claim something they denied in two prior Judicial Admissions. C. The Declarations in Prior Cases Set Forth a Basis to Deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend as it Directly Contradicts both Plaintiffs’ Statement as

well as the Position of Counsel.

“As a general rule, party will not be allowed to amend pleading to contradict admission made in his original pleading.” Rhode v. Bartholomew (1949) 94 Cal. App 2d 272. Here, Plaintiffs” claim in this Complaint, that they own the PROPERTY, is completely contradictory to four (4) prior statements in signed Declarations made under penalty of perjury. The Plaintiffs’, Say Dang Lee, and Chue Xiong, represented by the same Counsel, came before the Court in 2002 and again in 2004 and filed declarations under penalty of perjury supporting motions (see RIN #1 & 2) claiming they have no ownership in the PROPERTY. Instead, under penalty of perjury, the Plaintiffs now claim they “are the owner of certain property (referred to as “the subject property”), namely street address 8207 North Thompson Avenue, Clovis, California; Fresno County Assessor’s Parcel Number 558-060-05". (See RIN#3)

To allow Plaintiffs, to now claim that they do own an interest in the PROPERTY and the PROPERTY should be in their daughter, Chao Lee’s, name holding it in trust for them or their family (see proposed FAC paragraph 6) would be inconsistent, contradictory, and untruthful at the very least. In total, we have four (2) signatures from each of the Plaintiffs on Declarations and now two (2) each on the Complaint and proposed FAC that show inconsistency and untruth. The truth is found in the the decision of this the Fresno County Superior Court which held title to be valid in favor of Defendant, Fue Sue Lee who then conveyed his interest to Defendant, Yang Lee in Case No. 05CECG03705. (Exhibit B) The case was appealed and heard by the Fifth Appellate District of the Court of Appeals of California in Lee v. Lee, 175 Cal. App. 4™ 1553. The case which originally began in 2005 was decided by the Appellate Court in 2009. The Court held that “as to the 2002 deed... appellants

DEFENDANTS® MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

Fresno, California 93704

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT C. ABRAMS 5412 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 101

~1 N b~

did not intend to convey their interest to Ge Lee and Vong Lee and therefore the transfer was invalid as to those grantees. However, the transfer to Fue Sue remained valid.” Id. at 1556.

The Court quieted title in the nameordered and executed a Quitclaim Deed, Document Id No. 2012-0145085 which was recorded on October 12, 2012. (Exhibit A) The document itself is validated by the Court Clerk who signed the Deed to ensure compliance with the Court Order. The following and final deed, Document Id No. 2013- 0166164 granted Fue Sue Lee’s interest to Yeng Lee.

Furthermore, in each and every deed in which the name ‘Chao Lee’ is mentioned, the name is used in the masculine form. In the earlier documents, he is referred to as a ‘single man’; in the later documents he is referred to as a ‘married man’. Additionally, in the notaryizedcopies, ‘his’, *he’ and/or ‘him’ are circled. Plaintiffs’ last-ditch effort to unlawfully gain ownership of this PROPERTY holds no merit. Yang Lee is the rightful owner and has paid the Property taxes on the subject property for nearly the last decade. Had Chao Lee, the female, and Plaintiffs held any real belief of being owners of title to the PROPERTY, they should be able to prove payment of property taxes, which they cannot.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ motion to submit a First Amended Complaint should be denied as a matter of law. As set forth above, the Court has discretion to deny leave to amend where the proposed amendment is contradictory in nature, fails to state a valid cause of action, or where behavior of the parties is “wholly inexcusable” which the conduct in this case amounts to. Plaintiffs fail to provide any factual basis which isn’t contradicted by prior pleadings to set forth a valid case. The claim is completely without merit.

Based upon the foregoing law and argument, Defendants, YENG LEE, FUE SUE LEE, VAH HOUA LEE, and GE LE respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to amend their Complaint to add a Plaintiff and a Cause of Action. In addition, Defendants also

request further action by the Court as deemed proper.

DEFENDANTS® MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS® MOTION

Fresno, California 93704

LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT C. ABRAMS 5412 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 101

NNNNMNNNMI—ID—!HP—!'—NMI—!I—IP—KH OO\]O\'J\-PLW[\JHO\DOO“\]O\M-PWN'—‘O

DATED: November <>, 2017. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT C. ABRAMS

DEFENDANTS” MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION