Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04946/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04946-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MEI-FANG LISA ZHANG, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WEI-MAN RAYMOND TSE, et al.

Defendants. /

No. C 07-04946 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

JULY 20, 2012, AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf.

N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to

explain their reliance on such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of counsel

attorneys who are

Case 4:07-cv-04946-JSW Document 194 Filed 07/18/12 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court’s questions contained

herein.

The parties each shall have twenty (20) minutes to address the following questions:

1. How do Plaintiffs distinguish McNamara v. Sher, 2012 WL 760531, at *4 (S.D. Cal.

Mar. 8, 2012), McNamara v. Lee, 2011 WL 4635618, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2011),

and Sananikone v. United States, 2009 WL 796544, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2009)?

2. Do Plaintiffs have any authority to support their argument that a district court need not

make the findings required by section 415.50(a) of the California Code of Civil

Procedure to order service by publication?

3. Does Defendant have any additional authority, and in particular any authority that a

district court may dismiss for insufficient service of process or set aside judgment based

on a failure to comply with section 415.50(a) of the California Code of Civil Procedure,

to support his argument that the Court should vacate the judgment?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2012 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:07-cv-04946-JSW Document 194 Filed 07/18/12 Page 2 of 2