Li v. Yan

Filed 5/2/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

CHARLES LI, Plaintiff and Respondent, A144994 v. DEMAS YAN, (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC 10-497990) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Demas Yan is an attorney. Here, he appears as a judgment debtor, appealing from an ―Order Re Subpoena Duces Tecum,‖ an order made in the course of lengthy—and, from all appearances, unproductive—examination of judgment debtor proceedings attempted against him. Yan makes two arguments, that: (1) service of the subpoena requiring production of documents was improper, and (2) it was error to deny his claim of privilege as to tax returns. We reject both contentions and affirm the order. BACKGROUND The General Setting This is the second appeal by Yan, appeals arising out of a judgment in favor of Charles Li, awarding Li $552,412.30, including prejudgment interest. The first appeal asserted that the amount of prejudgment interest was erroneous, an appeal we rejected in an unpublished opinion filed on January 28, 2016. (Li v. Yan (Jan. 28, 2016, A140798) [nonpub. opn.] (Yan I).) This appeal arises out of the efforts by Li‘s attorney to enforce that judgment, and particularly from an order made in the course of the lengthy proceedings involving examination of Yan as a judgment debtor. The record in this appeal is unusual, in the sense that, while there is an appellant‘s appendix and a respondent‘s appendix, there is no

1

reporter‘s transcript, nor any real evidence—that is, sworn evidence in the trial court—in either appendix as to what in fact occurred. Two briefs from the trial court are in an appendix, but they contain no evidence of anything, only assertions as to what occurred, though Li‘s assertions are supported by various exhibits, assertions not disputed by Yan and accepted by the trial court. Li’s Lawsuit and Yan I To put the matter in context, we discuss generally the facts giving rise to Li‘s lawsuit and the judgment, many of which are from our opinion in Yan I, of which we take judicial notice. (Hammell v. Britton (1941) 19 Cal.2d 72, 75; Gackstetter v. Market St. Ry. Co. (1935) 10 Cal.App.2d 713, 716.) Li is a 78-year-old Chinese-American, with limited English and experience with the legal system. Yan is, as noted, an attorney, who became a member of the bar in 2008. As described in Li‘s brief—a description, we are satisfied, that finds full support in the record—―Between 2007 and 2009, [Yan] induced [Li‘s] confidence and acted, first, while [Yan] was still a law student, as [Li‘s] unlicensed attorney and then, after [Yan] was admitted to the bar, as his formally-retained lawyer. Ignoring blatant conflicts of interest, [Yan] advised and represented [Li] in an underlying matter involving a contract in which [Yan] himself was the obligor and [Li] was the assignee. At one point, while [Yan] was serving as [Li‘s] attorney, he was simultaneously suing [Li] in a separate lawsuit related to the same contract.‖ That was the background of Li‘s lawsuit against Yan. It was filed in March 2010, and alleged claims for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, unlawful business practices, breach of contract, and fraud. The case proceeded to a court trial before the Honorable Cynthia M. Lee. Judge Lee heard five days of testimony, following which she issued a lengthy, and comprehensive, statement of decision favorable to Li, initially awarding him $254,411.06, plus prejudgment interest. In that statement of decision, Judge Lee found, among other things, as follows: ―Yan began giving legal advice to Li in person, by telephone, and in extensive e-mail exchange. By then, Yan was a law student. He convinced Li that he had superior