| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion for Financial Condition Discovery; Motion to Stay
4 9:00 7 25CV465241 Marlen Sanchez v. Ying Liu, et al.
Order on Plaintiff’s Motion For Truth of Matters Specified in Requests for Admission To Be Deemed Admitted by Defendant
As the moving party Plaintiff Marlen Sanchez on May 7, 2026 withdrew this Motion, this Motion is OFF CALENDAR.
SO ORDERED.
9:00 8 21CV382249 Ahmad Wali Momand, et al. v. Frit San Jose Town and Country Village, LLC, et al.
Order on Defendant’s Motion for Leave To File Cross-Complaint
As the moving party Defendant/Cross- Complainant Frit San Jose Town and Country Village, LLC on May 1, 2026 withdrew this Motion, this Motion is OFF CALENDAR.
SO ORDERED.
9:00 9 22CV408251 Jiapei Sun, et al. v. John Reed, et al. Order on:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Conduct Discovery Into Defendant John Reed’s Financial Condition Under Civil Code Section 3295(c); & 2. Defendant’s Motion To Stay This Action Pending Appeal of His Conviction for First Degree Murder of Plaintiff’s Mom.
See Line 9 below for complete tentative ruling on both Motions in one Order. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file one formal order resolving both Motions.
5 9:00 10 24CV447215 Anshul Kothari, et al. v. Adam Wu, et al. Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Permit Discovery of the Financial Information of Defendant Adam Wu Under Civil Code Section 3295(c)
See Line 10 below for complete tentative ruling. After the hearing, the Court will prepare and file the formal order.
9:00 11 22CV408251 Jiapei Sun, et al. v. John Reed, et al. Order on Defendant’s Motion To Stay This Action Pending Appeal of His Conviction for First Degree Murder of Plaintiff’s Mom.
See Line 9 below for complete tentative ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Stay, which the Court analyzed in the same Order resolving Plaintiff’s Motion for Financial- Condition Discovery in the same case.
9:00 12
9:00 13
9:00 14
9:00 15
44 Line 9 Case Name: Jiapei Sun v. John Reed, et al.
Case No.: 22CV408251
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Plaintiff Jiapei Sun, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of her deceased mom Dongni He Reed, (“Plaintiff”) moves for leave to conduct discovery into the financial condition of Defendant John Reed (“Defendant”) under Civil Code Section 3295(c). Notice of Motion for Financial- Condition Discovery (the “Motion for Financial-Condition Discovery”) at 1:23-2:1 (filed: Jan. 12, 2026).
Opposing the Motion for Financial-Condition Discovery, Defendant John Reed (“Defendant”) moves to stay this wrongful death action pending resolution of Defendant’s criminal appeal for First Degree Murder of Plaintiff’s mom Dongni He Reed. Notice of Motion to Stay Civil Action Pending Criminal Appeal (“Motion to Stay”) at 1:20-24 (filed: April 15, 2026). The Motion to Stay is made on the grounds that a stay is necessary to protect Defendant’s Fifth Amendment Rights in connection with the pending criminal appeal arising from the same underlying factual issues that give rise to this action. Id. at 1:25-27.
The Motion for Financial-Condition Discovery and the Motion for Stay came on for hearing on May 13, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be he ard, the Court finds and rules as follows on both of these Motions.
Under Civil Code Section 3295(c), “[n]o pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted” with respect to “the financial condition of the defendant” unless the Court enters an Order permitting (otherwise- prohibited) pretrial discovery on defendant’s financial condition “if the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established that there is a substant ial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the [punitive damages] claim pursuant to Section 3294.” Civil Code § 3295(c).
Construing that statutory text, appellate precedent holds that that to grant a motion under Section 3295(c) for pretrial discovery of defendant’s financial condition the court must “make a finding that it is very likely that plaintiff will prevail on this claim for punitive damages.” Jabro v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 754, 758 (emphasis added). And to win on her punitive damages claim at trial under Civil Code Secti on 3294, Plaintiff will have to prove that Defendant John Reed “has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Civil Code § 3294(a) (emphasis added).
Applying this governing legal standard and carefully weighing all the affida vits
45 presented, the Court respectfully GRANTS the Motion because the Court does find and rule that Plaintiff is very likely to win at trial on her claim for punitive damages against Defendant John Reed for reasons the Court will now explain, including Defendant’s act of repeatedly stabbing and killing Plaintiff’s mom.
As made clear in the Sworn Declaration In Support of Plaintiff’s Motion and its Exhibits, these are not mere allegations this point —Defendant has been convicted of murdering Plaintiff’s mom; specifically, of First-Degree Murder: “the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought” under Penal Code Section 1987(a). Sworn Declaration Robert H. Bohn, Jr., in Support of Motion (“Bohn Decl.”) at ¶ 7 and Ex. B thereto (Abstract of Judgment of First-Degree Murder Conviction). Defendant Reed “intentionally and repeatedly stabbed Dongni” He Reed, the mom of Plaintiff, until he killed her. Bohn Decl. at ¶¶3- 4. As a direct and proximate result of Reed’s actions, Dongni He Reed “suffered severe emotional distress, catastrophic physical injuries, and wrongful death.” Bohn Decl. at ¶ 5.
So based on this evidence presenting in the Sworn Supporting Declaration including the Judgment of First-Degree Murder (Bohn Decl. ¶¶ 3-7 & Ex. B), the Court finds and rules that it is very likely indeed that Plaintiff will win i ts punitive damages claim against Defendant at trial for wrongfully killing Dongni He Reed with mal ice under Section 3294(a), thereby justifying discovery into the financial condition of Defend ant under Section 3295(c) now.
What opposing Affidavit or Sworn Declaration does Defendant Reed present to the Court to weigh when resolving this Motion for Financial-Condition Discovery? None whatsoever.
Rather than oppose this Motion for Financial-Condition Discovery as called for by the plain text of Section 3295(c) by presenting an “opposing affidavit” for the Court to weigh when deciding whether it is very likely that Plaintiff will win her cl aim for punitive damages, Defendant on April 15, 2025 instead filed a Motion to Stay this wrongful death civil action while he pursues his appeal of his conviction for First Degree Murder. Defendant argues that making him participate in discovery, such as making h im “disclose his finances as Plaintiff’s pending motions requests this Court order” will harm Defendant by imperiling his Fifth Amendment Right against Self-Incrimination. Def. Memo. of Points & Authorities In Support of Motion to Stay Civil Action at 5:15-17 (filed: April 15, 2025).
Defendant’s Motion to Stay this civil action is DENIED. Defendant has no right to stay this statutory wrongful death civil action under California law in which Plaint iff Jiapei Sun seeks to recover damages for her mom’s wrongful death caused by Defendant. If the Legislature had wanted wrongful death actions against convicted murder ers to be automatically stayed while convicted murderers pursued appeals of their criminal convictions for the murders that share common facts with the wrongful death actions, the Legislature could have written that “stay proviso” into the statutory framework authorizing wrongful death actions under California law. It did not. Nor will this Court imply such a stay provision in California statutory law where none exists.
46 As for Defendant’s objection that he has a right against Self Incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, yes, he has that right. And if he wishes to obje ct based on the Fifth Amendment during discovery and trial by jury of this wrongful death action, he is free to do so. And the Court will rule on such objections at the appropriate time. But the mere fact that Defendant says he is going to object under the Fifth Amendment is no reason let alone authority to stay the this civil action that Plaintiff brought seeking redress and justice for this claim of wrongful death by stabbing of Dongni He Reed by Defendant John Reed.
Indeed, this Court is aware of no appellate precedent holding that a wrongful death civil action must be stayed where defendant decides to appeal his crimina l conviction for murdering the decedent whose wrongful death the civil action is about. So unless and until the California Supreme Court or Sixth Appellate District instructs this Court that a stay is required in this wrongful death action while this convicted murdere r appeals his criminal conviction, there will be no stay granted by the undersigned Judge.
Justice delayed is justice denied, and this Court will not deny justice by dela ying — let alone staying —this wrongful death case at all.
Moreover, given the facts here involving a crime of violence by Defendant, the Court sees no threat to the Fifth Amendment by discovery into his financial condition. Now if the nature of the crime of which he was convicted were related to his financ ial condition (e.g., tax evasion, embezzlement, securities fraud), then the Court could se e how the financial-condition discovery sought into his balance sheets, net-worth statements, tax returns, etc., might present a risk of incriminating him. But given the circumstances here, Defendant’s objection that financial-condition discovery will somehow imperil his Fifth Amendment right is unfounded and unpersuasive.
The bottom line is that while Defendant is free to make any Fifth Amendment objections at any time in this civil action whenever he wishes, and the Court will ru le on such objections in due course, this wrongful death action will not be stayed.
Conclusion & Order
Plaintiff’s Motion under Civil Code Section 3295(c) to conduct Discovery into the Financial Condition of Defendant John Reed is GRANTED.
Defendant John Reed’s Motion to Stay this wrongful death civil action while he pursues an appeal of his criminal conviction for First Degree Murder is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Date: May 13, 2026 Hon. Vincent I. Parrett Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara
47 Line 10 Case Name: Anshul Kothari, et al. v. Adam Wu, et al.
Case No.: 24CV447215
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
Plaintiffs move for an Order Permitting Discovery of the Financial Condition of Defendant Adam Wu (“Defendant”) under Civil Code Section 3295(c) on the ground that there is a substantial probability that Plaintiffs will prevail on their puniti ve damages claims. Notice of Motion (the “Motion”) at 2:3-6.d
The Motion came on for hearing on May 13, 2026, at 9:00 AM in Department 16. After reviewing all the papers and the record, and giving counsel for all parties the full and fair opportunity to be heard, the Court finds and rules as follows.
Under Civil Code Section 3295(c), “[n]o pretrial discovery by the plaintiff shall be permitted” with respect to “the financial condition of the defendant” unless the Court enters an Order permitting (otherwise- prohibited) pretrial discovery on defendant’s financial condition “if the court finds, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established that there is a substant ial probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the [punitive damages] claim pursuant to Section 3294.” Civil Code § 3295(c).
Construing that statutory text, appellate precedent holds that that to grant a motion under Section 3295(c) for pretrial discovery of defendant’s financial condition, the court must “make a finding that it is very likely that plaintiff will prevail on this claim for punitive damages.” Jabro v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 754, 758 (emphasis added). And to win on their punitive damages claim at trial under Civil Code Sect ion 3294, Plaintiffs will have to prove that Defendant “has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” Civil Code § 3294(a).
Applying this governing legal standard and carefully weighing all the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, the Court respectfully DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Motion because the Court does not find at this stage of the proceedings that Plaintiffs are “very likely” to prevail at trial on their claim for punitive damages against Defendant Adam Wu. Jabro, 95 Cal. App. 4th at 758. It’s quite possible that Plaintiffs will win punitive damages at trial, but the Court does not find base d on the affidavi ts presented that they are “very likely” to do so. Id.
The Court reminds all parties that by the plain text of Section 3295(c), this “order shall not be considered to be a determination on the merits of [Plaintiffs’ punitive damages] claim or any defense thereto and shall not be given in evidence or referred to a t
49 Line 11 Case Name: Jiapei Sun v. John Reed, et al.
Case No.: 22CV408251
[See Line 9 above for complete tentative ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Stay, which the Court analyzed in the same Order resolving Plaintiff’s Motion for Financial-Condition Discovery in the same case.]