Judge: Craig Griffin, Case: Szeto v. Woo, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

The renewed Motion to Compel Inspection of Defendant’s Land, etc., filed by Plaintiff Gene Szeto (“Plaintiff”) on 7/25/22 is GRANTED. 

As a threshold matter, the Opposition presents evidence that the Woo bankruptcy has now been resolved with a discharge, and that Plaintiff failed to file any claim or adversary proceeding in connection therewith.  The Opposition contends that the discharge thus ends this case.  Not so.  Because the fraudulent transfer claims here at issue were not brought into the bankruptcy estate before closing, they are considered abandoned by the trustee.  Thus, after the close of the bankruptcy case, Plaintiff became free to pursue third parties under theories of alter ego and fraudulent transfer, despite the judgment debtor’s discharge.  See, e.g., Brenelli Amedeo, S.P.A. v. Bakara Furniture, Inc.(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1828; Sanwa Bank California v. Chang (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1314.

Defendant notes that Plaintiff withdrew inspection demand no. 2, but this argument is unavailing as Plaintiff is seeking to compel on inspection demand no. 3.  Plaintiff has provided both a declaration and proof of service attesting to proper service of this demand upon Defendant.

Defendant also argues that a declaratory relief judgment from New York establishes that Defendant is a bona fide purchaser.  But neither Plaintiff nor anyone in privity with him was a party to the declaratory relief judgment; it is therefore ineffective as to him.  See

Patel v. Crown Diamonds, Inc. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 29, 37 (“Under the requirement of privity, only parties to the former judgment or their privies may . . . be bound by it.”)

The evidentiary objections in ROA 232 are OVERRULED.   The evidentiary objections as to the prior Opposition, to the extent relevant here, are SUSTAINED on Objs. 1 and 2 [legal conclusions], Objs. 3, 4, and 7-9 [foundation; improper argument], and on Objs. 6 and 10 [foundation], but otherwise OVERRULED.  

The Request for Judicial Notice filed as ROA 228 is GRANTED under Ev. Code §452(d), as to the existence of the records but not as to the truth of any disputed facts asserted therein. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264; Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010). The prior Request for Judicial Notice filed as ROA 126, to the extent relevant here, is also GRANTED under Ev. Code §452(d), as to the existence of the record but not as to the truth of any disputed facts asserted therein.

All requests for sanctions are DENIED.

Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.