Judge: David Sotelo, Case: 18STCV05746, Date: 2022-08-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 18STCV05746 Hearing Date: August 19, 2022 Dept: 40
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant
Weichou Huang.
The instant
cross-actions arose from a loan made from Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Weichou Huang
to Defendant/Cross-Complainant Xiangjie Zhou. Huang now moves to amend a January
11, 2022 Judgment entered by this Court in his favor to add Chinese International,
Inc. as Judgment Debtor. However, because
Zhou perfected an appeal as to the January 11, 2022 on March 14, 2022 and
thereby divested this Court of jurisdiction to amend that Judgment until
remittitur or default are entered on the appeal, Huang’s Motion to Amend
Judgment is DENIED.
On November 20, 2018, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Weichou Huang
filed his Complaint alleging claims against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Xiangjie Zhou on the grounds that Huang entered
into a written agreement with Zhou, whereby Huang first lent Zhou $192,758.00 and
later a further $180,000.00, only for Zhou to fail to repay Huang.
On January 28, 2019, Zhou filed a Cross-Complaint against Huang.
Zhou filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint on February 22, 2019, later adding Lifen
Wu as Roe 1 on May 27, 2021.
On December 6, 2021, the Court denied a motion for judgment on
the pleadings filed by Zhou against the Huang Complaint’s causes of action.
On December 8, 2021, pursuant to an oral request at trial by
Zhou, the Zhou Cross-Complaint was dismissed without prejudice as to Huang and Lifen
Wu (Roe 1).
On December 9, 2021, this Court “rule[d] in favor of Plaintiff,
Weichou Huang, and against the Defendant, Hizngjie Zhou, in the amount of $372,758.00
plus costs as allowed by memorandum.”
On January 11, 2022, the Clerk entered Judgment in favor of Huang
as against Zhou “in the amount of $523,721.38, comprised of the principal amount
of $372,758.30, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of $148,429.7, and costs
in the amount of $2,533.38.” Notice of Judgment was made on Zhou on January 13,
2022, and an Abstract of Judgment was issued on January 21, 2022.
On March 14, 2022, Zhou filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court’s
(1) December 6, 2021 denial of Zhou’s motion for judgment on the pleadings
against the Huang Complaint’s causes of action and (2) the January 11, 2022 Judgment
made after trial.
On March 21, 2022, the Clerk issued a Notice of Filing of Appeal
with regard to the appeal filed by Zhou on March 14, 2022 through counsel Helen
W. Quan.
On May 27, 2022, Huang made the instant Motion to Amend Judgment
the January 11, 2022 Judgment to add a judgment debtor, i.e., Chinese International,
Inc. (“CII”), on the grounds that “there is such a unity of interest and ownership
between CII and ZHOU, and CII is and has been used as a mere shell for ZHOU and
his family’s personal affairs.” Zhou filed an Opposition on August 9, 2022 and Huang
filed a Reply on August 18, 2022.
None of the papers address the pendency of the Zhou’s active
appeal against the December 6, 2021 Denial and January 11, 2022 Judgment.
The Motion to Amend Judgment is now before the Court.
Analysis: While unaddressed by the Motion, Opposition,
and Reply, section 916 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that, unless a listed
exception applies, “the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court
upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or
affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial
court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected
by the judgment or order.”
“[S]ection 916, as a matter of logic and policy, divests the
trial court of jurisdiction over the subject matter on appeal—i.e., jurisdiction
in its fundamental sense.” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005)
35 Cal.4th 180, 198.) The “filing of a notice of appeal deprives the trial court
of jurisdiction of the cause and vests jurisdiction with the appellate court until
the reviewing court issues a remittitur.” (In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th
1489, 1499.) “The purpose of the automatic stay … ‘is to protect the appellate court’s
jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided’” and to “‘prevent[
] the trial court from rendering an appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment
or order by conducting other proceedings that may affect it.’” (Varian, at
p. 189; accord, LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 862, 872.)
“When triggered, [section 916] bars all proceedings” in the trial
court “that ‘directly or indirectly seek to “enforce, vacate or modify [the] appealed
judgment”’” (LAOSD Asbestos Cases, supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 872;
see Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 189), and generally divests the
trial court of the “‘power to amend or correct its judgment ….’” (Vosburg v.
Vosburg (1902) 137 Cal. 493, 496; accord. Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113
Cal.App.3d 892, 912; see Pazderka v. Caballeros Dimas Alang, Inc. (1998)
62 Cal.App.4th 658, 666 [“an appeal from a judgment order strips the trial court
of any authority to rule on the judgment”].)
Here, on March 14, 2022, Zhou appealed “the ruling on
Defendant[ Zhou]’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings made on December 6,
2021 and the judgment after trial made on January 11, 2022, of which notice of
the entry of judgment was served on January 13, 2022 and filed on January 12,
2022.” (Mar. 14 Notice of Appeal.) This appeal was confirmed by the Court Clerk
on March 21, 2022. (See Mar. 21 Notice of Filing of Notice of Appeal.) The
docket fails to reflect that this appeal has been returned on remittitur or
defaulted on by Zhou. (See docket generally.)
Despite this Appeal, Huang’s Motion to Amend Judgment seeks
to amend the January 11, 2022 Judgment by adding CII as a judgment debtor given
Zhou’s alleged use of CII as his alter ego. (Mot., 1:24-2:11, 5:6-11:21.) This
is not possible. “When triggered, [section 916] bars all proceedings” in the
trial court “that ‘directly or indirectly seek to “enforce, vacate or modify
[the] appealed judgment”’” (LAOSD Asbestos Cases, supra, 28
Cal.App.5th at p. 872; see Varian, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 189),
and generally divests the trial court of the “‘power to amend or correct its
judgment ….’” (Vosburg, supra, 137 Cal. at p. 496; accord. Davis,
supra, 113 Cal.App.3d at p. 912.)
Huang’s Motion to Amend Judgment is thus DENIED without
prejudice.
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Weichou Huang’s Motion to Amend
Judgment entered by this Court on January 11, 2022 to add Chinese International,
Inc. as judgment debtor is DENIED because Zhou perfected an appeal as to the
January 11, 2022 on March 14, 2022 and thereby divested this Court of
jurisdiction to amend this Judgment until remittitur or default are issued on
the appeal.