{"id":"court_ctb_1541_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1541,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":"2023-01-24","title":"Richard N. Freeth Freeth & Associates, LLC 260 Madison Ave., 8th Floor New York, New York 10016 (917) 775-7082","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"Richard N. Freeth Freeth & Associates, LLC 260 Madison Ave., 8th Floor New York, New York 10016 (917) 775-7082\n\nAttorneys for Himalaya Investment LLC\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------X\n\nIn Re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al. Chapter 11\n\nCase No.: 22-50073(JAM)\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\n\n## **NOTICE OF HIMALAYA INVESTMENT LLC'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA**\n\nDebtor.\n\nTO: Patrick R. Linsey, Esq. NEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C. 195 Church St., 13th Floor New Haven, CT 05610 Attorneys for Trustee\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut\n\nHimalaya Investment LLC (the \"Movant\"), an Arizona registered limited liability company, by and through undersigned counsel, Richard N. Freeth, hereby files this motion (the \"Motion\") for entry of an order, to quash the subpoena issued by the Trustee in the above-captioned matter, dated January 24, 2023 (the \"Subpoena\"), attached hereto as \"Exhibit A,\" and represents in support hereof as follows:\n\n#### **PRELIMINARY STATEMENT**\n\n**1.** The Trustee, in disregard of the Federal Rules regarding the serving of subpoenas upon non-parties, has sent an overbroad and unduly burdensome set of demands, and demand -- on an erroneous party -- to appear at a counsel's offices in New York, NY, to the Movant -- a limited liability company registered in Arizona, owned by an Arizona resident, and its only business address in Arizona. Notably, more than 100 miles from this Honorable Court. On this basis alone the subpoena must be quashed.\n\n**2.** Further, the Trustee, or his Counsel, have failed to perform to that level of professionalism expected of Federally appointed trustees, in that they failed to perform sufficient due diligence to confirm the identity of the Movant before serving them with an overbroad and unduly burdensome set of discovery demands, as the Movant is in no way connected to the Debtor, or the Creditors, or any asset, claim or item subject to the proceedings in this action.\n\n## **JURISDICTION AND VENUE**\n\n**3.** This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334(b). Venue of these cases and this Motion in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) (2).\n\n**4.** The legal predicates for the relief requested herein are Rule 9016 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the \"Bankruptcy Rules\") and Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the \"Federal Rules\").\n\n## **FACTS**\n\n**5.** Himalaya Investment LLC is composed of one Member, Jiaming Liu,1 who also serves as the Manager and Organizer.\n\n**6.** The Movant's sole principal does not have any knowledge or information regarding the business(es) of the Debtor at any time prior to the Petition Date or at present.\n\n**7.** The Movant has had no prior contact with any of the parties.\n\n**8.** Mr. Liu, the sole member of the Movant, immigrated from China to the USA in December 2010 at the age of 23.\n\n**9.** In the last two years, Mr. Liu has worked as a delivery driver with a monthly income at around \\$3000.\n\n<sup>1</sup> Mr. Liu has previously moved for the same relief, but for himself personally. Counsel for the Trustee has suggested that the subpoena served on Mr. Liu for the LLC are not covered by the first motion filed by your Undersigned. Therefore, despite efforts to save the filing of yet another motion, Mr. Liu is compelled to file the instant motion as a formality in light of the fact that the Trustee served a separate subpoena on Mr. Liu's LLC and has a short while ago indicated that he, through Trustee's Counsel, is unwilling to negotiate to resolve the issues surrounding these two subpoenas with Undersigned Counsel as one issue, and will in this instance stand on formalities.\n\n**10.** On December 22, 2022, Mr. Liu received a two-pound package of nearly four hundred pages of documents from Defendants. Mr. Liu thought the delivery was a mistake.\n\n**11.** Then, on January 20, 2023, Mr. Liu received a FedEx delivery of a Connecticut Bankruptcy Court order, dated January 13, 2023, which provided for limitations against certain individuals and entities from engaging in protests against certain parties involved in this proceeding, and other related individuals and entities associated with the Chinese Communist Party.\n\n**12.** On January 23, 2023, Mr. Liu made a phone call to 203-821-2000. He was connected to the Trustee's office at the offices of Paul Hastings. Mr. Liu tried to explain to the Trustee's office that he was not the person they were looking for, that his company was not the company the trustee should go after, and that the trustee's office must have made a mistake.\n\n**13.** Rather than listen to Mr. Liu, the Trustee's lawyer's office confirmed Mr. Liu's name and address, but otherwise did not answer any further questions, nor acknowledge Mr. Liu's protestation that he was not connected to these proceedings, or the entities or individuals involved, in any way.\n\n**14.** On the very next day, on January 24, 2022, around 2:00 pm MST, Mr. Liu was served with the subpoena by a court officer from Maricopa County Superior Court, Tonya Arruda.\n\n**15.** As a result of this repeated and gratuitous service of a massive set of documents on Mr. Liu, he started to panic. He could not focus his attention for the remaining of the day and becoming fearful, anxious and disoriented. Indeed, during this period, while operating his vehicle, a 2015 Toyota Prius near his residence in Scottsdale Arizona, Mr. Liu was unable to focus his attention because of his concerns on being subpoenaed. As a result of such disorientation, Mr. Liu failed to yield from a stop sign and hit the vehicle from the opposing direction.\n\n**16.** The Movant's principal suspects that he and his LLC were served the respective Subpoena because Mr. Liu employed the word \"Himalaya\" (the highest and maybe most famous mountain range in the world). The Movant was registered Himalaya Investment LLC in June 2020. The Movant does not know Ho Wan Kwok. Movant does not follow the Whistleblower Movement, with which Ho Wan Kwok is associated. Even though service of the subpoenas on Mr. Liu, and on the Movant, was improper, Mr. Liu and the Movant have indicated to the Trustee, through its Counsel, that Mr. Liu is willing, in lieu of being deposed and etc., to provide an affidavit indicating that he does not know any of the persons or entities listed in the subpoenas, and has no documents responsive to any of the requests. It would appear that this is not acceptable to the Trustee.\n\n#### **RECIPIENT SHOULD BE AWARDED ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS**\n\n**17.** The Court should impose sanctions against the Trustee under Federal Rule 45 because he did not take any reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense to Movant. Under Federal Rule 45(d)(1), \"a party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena.\" Further, \"[t]he court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees—on a party or attorney who fails to comply.\" Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1). \"Under Rule 45(d)(1), a court must conduct a two-part inquiry to determine: (1) whether the challenged subpoena imposed an undue burden or expense on the person(s) subject thereto; and (2) if so, what, if any, 'reasonable steps' the subpoenaing party and its counsel took to avoid imposing such a burden.\" Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197754, at \\*14 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2015) (imposing sanctions because the subpoenas \"were not reasonably tailored to produce information relevant to [the]\" case and they should not have been issued). \"The burden falls upon the serving party to prove that it has complied with this mandate.\" In re Faiella, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1452, at \\*13 (Bankr. D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2008).\n\n**18.** Here, the Trustee took no steps to avoid imposing an undue burden. It was utter disregard to the Movant as a person, and disrespect for his time, and energy, and financial situation.\n\n**19.** The Movant even called the Trustee's firm to explain how they had the wrong person, and he was utterly ignored. Rather than check their information, the Trustee has the Movant served with the same mass of documents via in-person service.\n\n4\n\n**20.** Here, the only due diligence criteria used by the Trustee and or Trustee's Counsel to serve these subpoenas would appear to have been the use of the name of most famous mountain chain in the world in a corporate entity. That is all. As a result, they intend to put someone under oath and compel him to answer invasive personal questions, spending his time and resources, and delve into his non-public business affairs. Who do these people think they are? What's the real motivation here? Intimidation of Mr. Liu for some other reason? Is it racially motivated? Your Undersigned can only speculate at this time.\n\n**21.** Sanctions under Federal Rule 45(d)(1) are meant to protect parties from the misuse of subpoenas. \"Sanctions are properly imposed, and attorney's fees are awarded where\" the party improperly issuing the subpoena \"refused to withdraw it, requiring the non-party to institute a motion to quash.\" Breaking Media, Inc. v. Jowers, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67473, at \\*18 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2021).\n\n**22.** The undersigned contacted the law offices of Newbert, Pepe & Monteith, listed at the attorney representing the Trustee, February 15, 2023 and February 20, 2023 in an effort to negotiate a stipulation in lieu of this motion, and Trustee's counsel declined to participate in any meaningful way, thus obligating the filing of this motion.\n\nDated: March 13, 2023 Freeth & Associates, LLC\n\nBy:\n\nRichard N. Freeth\n\n260 Madison Ave., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10016 (917)775-7082\n\nAttorneys for Himalaya Investment LLC\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 1541 Filed 03/13/23 Entered 03/13/23 15:16:31 Page 6 of 6\n\n# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT**\n\n*--------------------------------------------------------------------X*\n\nIn Re:\n\nHO WAN KWOK, et al. Chapter 11\n\nCase No.: 22-50073(JAM)\n\n\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\n\nDebtor.\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\n\nThis matter having come on before the Court on the Motion to Quash Subpoena filed on behalf of Himalaya Investment LLC. The parties appeared by and through their respective counsel of record.\n\nThe Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, including all of the records, files, and proceedings herein, finds that the Subpoena is unreasonable, oppressive, and without merit.\n\nIT IS ORDERED that the Subpoena dated January 24, 2023, and served on Himalaya Investment LLC, is QUASHED. THE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS GRANTED.","body_zh":"Richard N. Freeth\nFreeth & Associates, LLC\n260 Madison Ave., 8th Floor\nNew York, New York 10016\n(917) 775-7082\n\nHimalaya Investment LLC 代理律师\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人\n第 11 章（Chapter 11）\n\n案号：22-50073(JAM)\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\nHIMALAYA INVESTMENT LLC 申请撤销传票动议之通知\n\n债务人。\n\n致：Patrick R. Linsey, Esq.\nNEUBERT, PEPE & MONTEITH, P.C.\n195 Church St., 13th Floor\nNew Haven, CT 05610\n受托人代理律师\n\nUnited States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\nHimalaya Investment LLC（下称“动议人”），一家在亚利桑那州注册的有限责任公司，由其下述签字律师 Richard N. Freeth 代表，特此提出本动议（下称“本动议”），请求法院作出命令以撤销受托人在上述标题案件中于 2023年1月24日 发出的传票（下称“该传票”）（本动议随附该传票作为“附件 A”），并为此提出如下陈述：\n初步陈述\n\n1. 受托人无视关于向非当事人送达传票的《联邦规则》，向动议人——一家在亚利桑那州注册、由亚利桑那州居民所有、且其唯一营业地址位于亚利桑那州的有限责任公司——发出了范围过宽且造成过重负担的一整套要求，并错误地要求该错误当事人前往位于纽约州纽约市的律师事务所出庭。显而易见，该地点距本受尊敬的法院超过100英里。仅凭此项理由，该传票就必须予以撤销。\n\n2. 此外，受托人或其律师未能达到对联邦指定受托人所预期的专业水准，因为他们在向动议人送达范围过宽且造成过重负担的一整套证据开示要求之前，未能履行充分的尽职调查以核实动议人的身份，盖因动议人与债务人、债权人或本案诉讼程序所涉的任何资产、主张或标的均无任何关联。\n管辖权与审判地\n\n3. 根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 及 1334(b)，本法院对本案具有管辖权。根据 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 及 1409，这些案件及本动议在本司法管辖区的审判地是适当的。根据 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)，此属核心程序。\n\n4. 本动议所请求救济的法律依据为《联邦破产诉讼程序规则》（Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure，下称“《破产规则》”）第 9016 条以及《联邦民事诉讼程序规则》（Federal Rules of Civil Procedure，下称“《联邦规则》”）第 45 条。\n事实\n\n5. Himalaya Investment LLC 仅由一名成员 Jiaming Liu（刘家铭）1 组成，其同时担任经理及发起人。\n\n6. 动议人的唯一负责人对于在申请日之前的任何时间或目前债务人的业务均无任何了解或信息。\n\n7. 动议人此前与任何当事人均无接触。\n\n8. 刘先生作为动议人的唯一成员，于 2010年12月 23岁时从中国移民至美国。\n\n9. 在过去的两年中，刘先生一直从事外卖配送员工作，月收入约为 $3000。\n\n1 刘先生此前曾以其个人名义申请过同样的救济。受托人的律师认为，向刘先生送达的针对该有限责任公司的传票不属于下述签字律师提交的第一份动议所涵盖的范围。因此，尽管做出了努力以避免再次提交动议，但鉴于受托人向刘先生的有限责任公司送达了单独的传票，且不久前表示其通过受托人律师不愿与下述签字律师将这两份传票涉及的争议作为一个问题进行协商解决，并在此事上坚持流于形式，刘先生不得不出于程序形式要求提交本动议。\n\n10. 2022年12月22日，刘先生收到了来自被告的一份重达两磅、近四百页的文件包裹。刘先生以为该投递属于误送。\n\n11. 随后，于 2023年1月20日，刘先生收到了一份联邦快递寄送的康涅狄格区破产法院于 2023年1月13日 作出的命令，该命令对某些个人和实体参与针对本程序涉及的某些当事人以及与中国共产党有关联的其他相关个人和实体的抗议活动作出了限制。\n\n12. 2023年1月23日，刘先生拨打了电话 203-821-2000。电话接通至受托人在 Paul Hastings（普衡律师事务所）办事处设立的办公室。刘先生试图向受托人办公室解释，他不是他们要找的人，他的公司也不是受托人应当追查的公司，受托人办公室必定是搞错了。\n\n13. 受托人律师的办公室不仅没有听取刘先生的陈述，在确认了刘先生的姓名和地址后，便不再回答任何进一步的问题，也未理会刘先生关于其与这些诉讼程序或所涉实体或个人没有任何关联的申明。\n\n14. 就在次日，即 2022年1月24日 山地标准时间（MST）下午 2:00 左右，来自 Maricopa County Superior Court（马里科帕县高等法院）的法院官员 Tonya Arruda 向刘先生送达了传票。\n\n15. 由于一再且无端地向刘先生送达大量文件，他开始陷入恐慌。在当天剩余的时间里，他无法集中注意力，变得恐惧、焦虑和心神不宁。事实上，在此期间，刘先生在亚利桑那州斯科茨代尔的住所附近驾驶其车辆（一辆 2015 年款丰田普锐斯）时，由于担心被传唤而无法集中注意力。由于这种心神不宁，刘先生在停车标志前未能让行，撞上了对面驶来的车辆。\n\n16. 动议人的负责人怀疑，他和他的有限责任公司之所以被送达各自的传票，是因为刘先生使用了“Himalaya”（喜马拉雅，世界上最高也许是最著名的山脉）一词。动议人于 2020年6月 注册为 Himalaya Investment LLC。动议人并不认识郭文贵。动议人也没有关注郭文贵所关联的爆料革命（Whistleblower Movement）。尽管向刘先生及动议人送达传票的做法并不适当，但刘先生和动议人已通过受托人的律师向受托人表明，刘先生愿意提供一份宣誓书以代替接受录取口供等程序，证明他不认识传票中列出的任何个人或实体，并且没有任何符合任何请求的文件。但受托人似乎并不接受这一点。\n受送达人应获批律师费和诉讼费用\n\n17. 法院应当根据《联邦规则》第 45 条对受托人实施制裁，因为他没有采取任何合理措施来避免给动议人造成过重负担或费用。根据《联邦规则》第 45(d)(1) 条，“负责签发和送达传票的当事人或律师必须采取合理措施，以避免对受传票约束的人造成过重负担或费用。”此外，“要求遵守传票所在司法管辖区的法院必须执行该职责，并对未遵守规定的当事人或律师施加适当的制裁——其中可包括收入损失和合理的律师费。”Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)。“根据第 45(d)(1) 条，法院必须进行两方面的审查以确定：(1) 受质疑的传票是否对受其约束的人造成了过重负担或费用；以及 (2) 如果造成了负担，传票签发方及其律师采取了何种‘合理措施’（如果有的话）来避免造成此类负担。”Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortg. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197754, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2015)（因传票“未经过合理剪裁以获取与本案相关的信息”且根本不应签发而施加制裁）。“证明其已遵守该项指令的举证责任由送达方承担。”In re Faiella, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 1452, at *13 (Bankr. D.N.J. Apr. 18, 2008)。\n\n18. 在本案中，受托人没有采取任何措施来避免造成过重负担。这完全无视动议人作为个人的权益，也是对其时间、精力和财务状况的不尊重。\n\n19. 动议人甚至曾致电受托人所在的律师事务所解释他们找错了人，但他被彻底忽视了。受托人不但没有核对其信息，反而通过当面送达的方式向动议人送达了同样的一大堆文件。\n\n20. 在本案中，受托人和/或受托人律师用于送达这些传票的唯一尽职调查标准，似乎就是在公司实体名称中使用了世界上最著名山脉的名称。仅此而已。结果，他们企图让某人在宣誓下作证，强迫其回答侵犯隐私的个人问题，耗费其时间和资源，并调查其非公开的商业事务。这些人以为他们是谁？这背后的真实动机是什么？是出于其他原因对刘先生进行恐吓？还是出于种族动机？下述签字人目前只能对此予以推测。\n\n21. 《联邦规则》第 45(d)(1) 条规定的制裁旨在保护当事人免受传票的滥用。“在不当签发传票的一方‘拒绝撤回传票，迫使非当事人提起撤销动议’的情况下，实施制裁并判给律师费是适当的。”Breaking Media, Inc. v. Jowers, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67473, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2021)。\n\n22. 下述签字人于 2023年2月15日 及 2023年2月20日 联络了受托人的代理律师事务所 Newbert, Pepe & Monteith，试图通过协商达成一项规定以代替本动议，而受托人律师拒绝进行任何有实质意义的参与，从而迫使提交本动议。\n\n日期：2023年3月13日\nFreeth & Associates, LLC\n\n签字人：\n\nRichard N. Freeth\n\n260 Madison Ave., 8th Fl.\nNew York, NY 10016\n(917)775-7082\n\nHimalaya Investment LLC 代理律师\n\n案件号 22-50073 文档 1541 提交于 03/13/23 录入于 03/13/23 15:16:31 第 6 页，共 6 页\nUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT（美国康涅狄格区破产法院）\n\n关于：\n\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人\n第 11 章（Chapter 11）\n\n案号：22-50073(JAM)\n\n___________________\n\n债务人。\n\n------------------*-------------------------------------------------*X\n\n本案系因代表 Himalaya Investment LLC 提交的撤销传票动议而提交至本法院。各方当事人均已由其各自的记录在案代理律师代表出庭。\n\n法院在审议了各方当事人的提交材料（包括本案的所有记录、卷宗及诉讼程序）后，认定该传票是不合理的、压迫性的且毫无根据的。\n\n现命令：2023年1月24日 出具并送达至 Himalaya Investment LLC 的传票予以撤销。保护令动议予以批准。","key_entities":["Himalaya","Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","CIPA","Chinese Communist Party","Paul Hastings","RICO"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":1772,"status":"published","published_at":"2023-01-24 00:00:00","created_at":"2023-01-24","updated_at":"2026-08-23 12:58:57"}