答辯后的具體安排(包括答辯狀樣本—簡約式) VIA REGULAR INTERNATIONAL MAIL May 18, 2005 Mr. Jefferson Zimmerman, Esq. Director of Law Department Wall Street Venture Capital, Inc. 15 Wall Street New York, New York 10002 Re: Wall Street Venture Capital, Inc. vs. China Venture Capital Co., Ltd. Tianjin Intermediate People’s Court, Docket No. TJ101 Dear Mr. Zimmerman: The defendant filed an answer to our complaint, a translated copy of which is enclosed for your records. Since the defendant has answered, the People’s Court set the first trial session on July 1, 2005. Enclosed please find a pre-trial scheduling order regarding your case. Kindly mark your calendars; your personal attendance, or your representative’s attendance, is mandatory at the pre-trial conference on June 12, 2005, and at the subsequent trial beginning on July 1, 2005. Be aware, however, that the trial date is subject to change, and the trial itself may not start until a few days to weeks later depending on the condition of the court’s trial calendar at that time. The trial may take as long as several days. It may be possible to settle the case before trial, but for planning purposes we must assume the case will go forward. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Wang, Zhang & Lee, L.L.P. ___________________ Deguang Zhang, Esq. Enclosures TIANJIN INTERMEDIATE PEOPLE’S COURT (English Translation)
Wall Street Venture Capital, Inc., Plaintiff vs. China Venture Capital Co., Ltd., Defendant Docket # TJ101 ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CHINA VENTURE CAPITAL CO., LTD. COMES NOW the Defendant, China Venture Capital Co., Ltd., by and through its attorneys, Tianjin Hongda Law Offices, and states as follows in answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint: JURISDICTION 1. The allegation contained in paragraph 1 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 2. The allegation contained in paragraph 2 is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, Defendant admits that venue in this court is proper, but denies the existence of any actionable claims. PARTIES 3. Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to Wall Street Venture Capital, Inc.’s organization and principal office. Allegations neither admitted nor denied are deemed denied. 4. Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraph 4. 5. Defendant is not the appropriate party to respond to the allegations concerning China Capital Control Group, the major shareholder of Defendant China Venture Capital Co., Ltd., as contained in paragraph 5. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, Defendant objects to the use of the terms “owner” and “state-controlled company” as being too vague and ambiguous to form a belief as to the remainder of the allegations contained therein. STATEMENT OF FACTS 6. Defendant is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations contained in paragraph 6. Allegations neither admitted nor denied are deemed denied. 7. Denied.
8. Defendant denies permitting or otherwise authorizing any persons to solicit and purchase the GR data-transferring technology and denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8. 9. Defendant admits receiving a letter dated January 23, 2005, from an American attorney named Leonard B. Smith who presented himself as the attorney for WSVCI. However, said letter was addressed to and intended for a different local Chinese company. Defendant denies all allegations contained in the alleged letter, denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 9 and objects to any reference to settlement discussions as irrelevant, inadmissible and immaterial. 10. Defendant admits that Defendant, through counsel, responded to the January 23, 2005 letter by advising Counsel for WSVCI that he mistakenly had contacted the wrong establishment. 11. Defendant admits receiving a letter dated February 25, 2005, from Leonard B. Smith but denies any “infringements” of WSVCI’S rights. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s reference to settlement as irrelevant, inadmissible and immaterial. 12. Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in paragraph 12, and once again objects to Plaintiff’s reference to settlement as irrelevant, inadmissible and immaterial. COUNT I CLAIM UNDER P.R.CHINA COMPANY LAW ARTICLE 24 AGAINST DEFENDANT CHINA VENTURE CAPITAL CO. 13. Defendant hereby incorporates by reference herein, as though stated in full, each of its responses to the allegations of paragraph 1 through 12. 14. The allegations of paragraph 14 are statements of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, Defendant denies each and every remaining allegation of paragraph 14. 15. Denied. COUNT II CLAIM UNDER P.R.CHINA CONTRACT CODE ARTICLE 25 AGAINST DFENDANT CHINA VENTURE CAPITAL CO., LTD.
16. Defendant hereby incorporates by reference herein, as though stated in full, each of its responses to the allegations of paragraph 1 through 15. 17. The allegations contained in paragraph 17 are statements of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, Defendant denies each and every allegations of paragraph 18. 18. Denied. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and each and every claim therein, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That Plaintiff is not a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of the P.R.China Company Law Article 101(b). THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That some or all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the monetary damages sought in the Complaint because Defendant did not engage in any conduct that would warrant the award of such damages. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That Defendant never willfully, unlawfully or otherwise breached or caused to be breached, any contractual obligations. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That Defendant never transmitted, divulged or published or assisted in the transmitting, divulging or publishing any of Plaintiff’s business secrets or intellectual property information. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE That Plaintiff mistakenly has confused Defendant with a similar local company in
close proximity to but unrelated with the Defendant. WHEREFORE, the Defendant, China Venture Capital Co., Ltd., respectfully requests this honorable Court: 1. To dismiss Count I of Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety; 2. To dismiss Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety; 3. To grant Defendant an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in defending this action; and 4. For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Tianjin Hongda Law Offices Attorneys for Defendant 123 Weijin Road Tianjin 300171 022-2378-1234 _____________________________ By Wei Lan, Esq., Bar # 1234567
(聲明:本站所使用圖片及文章如無注明本站原創(chuàng)均為網(wǎng)上轉(zhuǎn)載而來,本站刊載內(nèi)容以共享和研究為目的,如對(duì)刊載內(nèi)容有異議,請(qǐng)聯(lián)系本站站長。本站文章標(biāo)有原創(chuàng)文章字樣或者署名本站律師姓名者,轉(zhuǎn)載時(shí)請(qǐng)務(wù)必注明出處和作者,否則將追究其法律責(zé)任。) |