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

Case No. CV 09 0228 BZ: PLAINTIFF’S RESP. TO TRAILERWORKS’ DEFTS’ REQ. TO APPEAR BY PHONE -1- 

John M. Daley, Esq. (SBN 065574)

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. DALEY

95 South Market Street, Suite 300

San Jose, CA 95113

Telephone: (408) 286-0200

e-mail: jdaley@johnmdaley.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Dart Express (SFO), Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

_____________________________________

DART EXPRESS (SFO), INC., a California

corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CHANGZHOU NANXIASHU TOOL CO.,

LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________

_

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

_)

Case No. CV 09 0730 BZ

RESPONSE TRAILERWORKS’

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO APPEAR

VIA TELEPHONE

Conference Date: January 11, 2010

Conference Time: 4:00 pm

Plaintiff Dart Express (SFO), Inc. does not object to the request by counsel for

Trailerworks International, LLC and David Catlin to appear by telephone so long as it is also

permitted to appear via telephone.

Plaintiff believes that a telephone conference with both counsel and the Court would

be sufficient to address how this matter should proceed for the following reasons:

1. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges claims for declaratory relief, indemnity and fraud

against both the Trailerworks defendants and defendant Changzhou Nanxiashu Tool Co., Ltd.

(hereinafter “Changzhou Tool”), a company organized and existing under the laws of the People’s

Republic of China.

2. Although plaintiff complied with the requirements for serving defendant

Changzhou Tool under the laws of the People’s Republic of China by providing a translated version

Case 3:09-cv-00730-BZ Document 40 Filed 01/08/10 Page 1 of 3
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

Case No. CV 09 0228 BZ: PLAINTIFF’S RESP. TO TRAILERWORKS’ DEFTS’ REQ. TO APPEAR BY PHONE -2- 

of the original Complaint filed in this action with the Chinese Ministry in or around April 2009, the

Ministry has not yet completed service of the Complaint upon Changzhou Tool. Although plaintiff

has also provided copies of the original Complaint and of the most recent amended Complaint filed

in this action directly to representatives of Changzhou Tool, including its purported President and

counsel in the People’s Republic of China, defendant Changzhou Tool has thus far failed to respond.

2. At or about the same time that this action was filed, defendant Changzhou Tool

filed Complaints against plaintiff in the People’s Republic of China and subsequently obtained

judgments against plaintiff in those actions.

3. Since plaintiff has no assets in China, defendant Changzhou Tool will be unable

to recover those judgments from plaintiff unless and until it either appears in this action or files a

separate action to enforce those judgments in the United States.

4. As the Court can see from the record, defendant Changzhou Tool has not yet

responded to the Complaint or appeared in this action.

5. So far as plaintiff is aware, defendant Changzhou Tool has taken no action to

enforce the judgments it obtained in the Chinese actions against plaintiff in the United States.

6. The Court previously opined, and plaintiff agrees, that the active participation

of defendant Changzhou Tool in this action is essential to the proper resolution of the issues presented

in the action.

7. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff has suggested to counsel for defendants that

this action be stayed until one or the other of the following events occurs:

a. defendant Changhzou files an Answer or otherwise appears in this

action;

b. plaintiff files a Notice or other document (e.g., a Motion for an Order

Enjoining Defendant Changzhou Tool from Proceeding in Another Court) advising the Court that

defendant Changzhou Tool has filed a lawsuit or otherwise taken action against it to enforce the

judgments it obtained in the Chinese court;

8. Plaintiff has also suggested that, as part of the order staying the action, the

parties be ordered to preserve all transactional documents and records which are relevant to this

Case 3:09-cv-00730-BZ Document 40 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 3
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

Case No. CV 09 0228 BZ: PLAINTIFF’S RESP. TO TRAILERWORKS’ DEFTS’ REQ. TO APPEAR BY PHONE -3- 

lawsuit so long as the action remains pending, including documents and records requested but not yet

produced, and that all outstanding objections to the failure to produce or respond to discovery be

preserved. Plaintiff has not insisted that the Trailerworks defendants produce financial records and

other documents which were requested months ago, and which defendants indicated they would

produce, even though they have thus far failed to do so.

9. Although counsel for the Trailerworks defendants indicated earlier this

afternoon that his clients are prepared to agree to a stay, he has also indicated that he first wants to

take the depositions of Messrs. Dean Huang and Rolando Barrera, two employees of plaintiff Dart

Express (SFO), Inc. Plaintiff believes that the action should be stayed without any further

proceedings.

Dated: January 7, 2010.

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. DALEY

By /s/ 

John M. Daley, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Dart Express (SFO), Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

GRANTED

Judge Bernard Zimmerman

Counsel's request to appear by phone 

at status conference is GRANTED.

Counsel shall contact 

CourtCall, telephonic 

court appearances at 

1-888-882-6878, and make 

arrangements for the 

telephonic conference 

call.

Case 3:09-cv-00730-BZ Document 40 Filed 01/08/10 Page 3 of 3