Li v. Chiu CA1/3

Filed 6/30/16 Li v. Chiu CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CHARLES LI, Plaintiff and Respondent, A145509 v. THAI MING CHIU et al., (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CGC-14-537574) Defendants and Appellants.

Defendants Thai Ming Chiu and Kaman Liu (defendants) appeal from an order awarding $8,425 to plaintiff Charles Li (plaintiff) as discovery sanctions. Defendants contend the award is unreasonable and arbitrary because it exceeds the amount requested by plaintiff in a sanctions motion. They also claim that sanctions are unwarranted under the circumstances. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding monetary sanctions for discovery abuses. Further, the challenged order includes rulings in favor of plaintiff on two separate discovery motions—a motion for sanctions filed by plaintiff and a motion to compel filed by one of the defendants. When the record associated with both motions is taken into account, there is factual support for the amount of the sanctions award. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The discovery dispute giving rise to this appeal has its origin in an effort by plaintiff to enforce a judgment against Demas Yan, an attorney whom plaintiff had sued for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, among other claims. (See Li v. Yan

1

(2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 56, 62.) A second amended judgment against Yan awarded plaintiff $552,412.30, inclusive of prejudgment interest. (Id. at p. 62.) Through efforts to enforce the judgment, plaintiff learned that Yan had transferred rental property he owned in San Francisco (the San Francisco rental property) to a wholly owned limited liability company (LLC) in 2007, even though Yan had an active bankruptcy case at the time. According to plaintiff, after the trial against Yan had commenced in 2012, Yan transferred his ownership interest in the LLC to his mother and defendants, who are Yan’s brothers-in-law. The transfer was purportedly undertaken to repay debts Yan owed to these relatives. Then, in November 2013, after the court issued an order for the LLC to appear for an examination in connection with enforcement of the judgment, the San Francisco rental property was transferred yet again to a newly formed LLC owned by the same individuals who owned the LLC that transferred the property. After plaintiff learned of these transactions involving the San Francisco rental property, which he interpreted as efforts by Yan to protect his main asset from being used to satisfy the judgment against him, plaintiff filed a separate action in February 2014 for fraudulent transfer against Yan, Yan’s parents, the two LLCs, and the two individuals who are parties to this appeal—Yan’s brothers-in-law, defendants Thai Ming Chiu and Kaman Liu.1 Yan appeared as an attorney for defendants in the trial court and is their counsel of record in this appeal, which arises out of the fraudulent transfer action. Plaintiff served discovery requests upon defendants in April 2014. Among other things, plaintiff sought documents related to the San Francisco rental property that evidenced mortgages, liens, loans secured by the property, rental agreements, and rent payments. The documents sought by plaintiff would tend to show who exercised control over the San Francisco rental property or derived ownership benefits from it, and thus would bear upon whether the various transfers of the property were structured to keep the San Francisco rental property out of the reach of judgment creditors while maintaining