Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case 20STCV49552 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed. Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least 14 days before the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 437c, subdivision (b)(2).

This action arises out of the misappropriation of Plaintiff’s money. The complaint (the “Complaint”) alleges: (1) conversion; (2) fraudulent deceit; (3) promissory estoppel; (4) breach of contract; and (5) civil conspiracy.

On November 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication (the “Motion”) on the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact as to the liability of Defendant Hou Hua (“Hua”) with regard to each cause of action alleged in the Complaint.

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) CCP section 437c, subdivision (c) requires the judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication meets the burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if the plaintiff has proved each element of the cause of action entitling them to judgment on that cause of action. (CCP § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) Courts liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of the opposing party. (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.) The opposition papers must include a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts that the moving party claims to be undisputed. (CCP § 437c, subd. (b)(3).) If the opposing party disputes a fact, then the opposing party must reference supporting evidence. (Id.) Without a statement of undisputed facts containing references to supporting evidence in the form of affidavits or declarations, it is impossible for the opposing party to demonstrate the existence of disputed facts. (Lyons v. Security Pacific Nat Bank (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1006-07.)

Plaintiff provides evidence that in approximately July 2019, Hua referred Plaintiff to Li Liu (“Liu”) to help Plaintiff exchange Chinese currency into American currency. (Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) 2.) Hua told Plaintiff that she would act as guarantor for any transaction between Duan and Liu. (UMF 2-3.) Hua and Liu privately agreed that they would take Plaintiff’s funds for their own use. (UMF 36-37.) On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff made two transfers in a total amount of 2,660,000 renminbi to Chinese bank accounts designated by Liu. (UMF 4.) Hua received at least some of this amount, which Plaintiff did not consent to. (UMF 5-6.) Plaintiff has not received back any portion of the funds that he transferred on February 19, 2020. (UMF 7.) The amount Plaintiff transferred on February 19, 2020 is the equivalent of approximately $380,136. (Id.)

The elements of conversion are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. (Hodges v. County of Placer (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 537, 551.) Money cannot be the subject of a cause of action for conversion unless there is a specific, identifiable sum involved, such as where an agent accepts a sum of money to be paid to another and fails to make the payment. (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1491.)

The Motion satisfies Plaintiff’s burden of showing that there are no triable issues of fact for the conversion claim. Plaintiff’s evidence demonstrates that Hua wrongfully received a specific amount of Plaintiff’s money and never returned it. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion to the first cause of action.

The elements of intentional misrepresentation are: (1) misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Golden Eagle Land Investment, L.P. v. Rancho Santa Fe Assn. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 399, 428.)

Plaintiff’s evidence demonstrates that Hua knowingly misrepresented that Plaintiff’s Chinese currency would be converted into American dollars in order to induce Plaintiff to transfer funds, that Hua knew this representation was false, that Plaintiff relied on Hua’s representation, and that Plaintiff suffered damages after making the money transfer. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion to the second cause of action.

The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are: (1) a promise clear and unambiguous in its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) the reliance must be both reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) the party asserting the estoppel must be injured by his reliance. (US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 887, 905.)

Plaintiff’s evidence establishes that Hua made a clear promise to act as a guarantor for any transaction between Plaintiff and Liu, that Plaintiff reasonably relied on this promise, and that Plaintiff was damaged by his reliance. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion to the third cause of action.

The elements of a breach of oral contract claim are the same as those for a breach of written contract: (1) a contract; (2) its performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) breach; and (4) damages. (Stockton Mortgage, Inc. v. Tope (2014) 233 Cal.App.4th 437, 453.)

Plaintiff has presented evidence to demonstrate that Hua breached the oral guarantee contract entered into in 2019 by failing to return Plaintiff’s funds. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion to the fourth cause of action.

The elements of a civil conspiracy claim are: (1) the formation and operation of the conspiracy; (2) wrongful conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (3) damages arising from the wrongful conduct. (AREI II Cases (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1022.)

Plaintiff has presented evidence that demonstrates that Liu and Hua formed a conspiracy to misappropriate Plaintiff’s money, that they took steps in furtherance of their plan, and that Plaintiff was damaged as a result. The Court therefore GRANTS the Motion to the fifth cause of action.

In consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Court strongly encourages that appearances on all proceedings, including this one, be made by LACourtConnect if the parties do not submit on the tentative. If you instead intend to make an appearance in person at Court on this matter, you must send an email by 2 p.m. on the last Court day before the scheduled date of the hearing to SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org stating your intention to appear in person. The Court will then inform you by close of business that day of the time your hearing will be held. The time set for the hearing may be at any time during that scheduled hearing day, or it may be necessary to schedule the hearing for another date if the Court is unable to accommodate all personal appearances set on that date. This rule is necessary to ensure that adequate precautions can be taken for proper social distancing.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court