Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 20GDCV00722, Date: 2023-08-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20GDCV00722 Hearing Date: August 10, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: August 10, 2023 TRIAL
DATE: August 29, 2023
CASE: LEAFIRE INC, a
Delaware corporation, and LLULLLU LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, v.
CADM INC.., a California corporation; JIANQIANG GU, an individual; HFE LLC, a
California limited liability company; WEE HIN, an individual, ROBERT CHEN, an
individual; CANNA HEALTHCARE, INC., a California corporation; LW VENTURES INC.,
a California corporation; COUNG THICH, an individual; 360 ESPINOSA ROAD II,
LLC, a California limited liability corporation; CANNABIS STRATEGIC VENTURES, a
Nevada Corporation, BENSHENG LI, a.k.a. BENSON LI, an individual; FONG SIMON
YU, an individual; CAXYH LLC, a California limited liability company; CAYPFD
LLC, a California limited liability company; CAMYG LLC, a California limited
liability company; CAMG LLC, a California
limited liability company; CAJYQNG, LLC, a California limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 20GDCV00722
MOTION
TO STRIKE
MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendants HFE, LLC and We
Hin (“Moving Parties”)
RESPONDING PARTY: No
response filed.
SERVICE: Filed July 24, 2023
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Moving Parties move to strike CADM
Inc and Jianquiang Gu’s amended cross-complaint filed on July 10, 2023.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiffs Leafire Inc. (“Leafire”) and Llulllu
LLC’s (“Llulllu”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) claim that the defendants, in
particular Jianquiang Gu (“Gu”), engaged in a fraudulent scheme regarding the
management of marijuana facilities in exchange for a $12 million investment.
On April 3, 2023,
Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint (“FAC”) against CADM, Gu, HFE, Wee
Hin, Robert Chen, Canna Healthcare, Inc. (“Canna”), LW Ventures Inc. (“LW”),
Cough Thich, 360 Espinosa Road II (“360 Espinosa”), Cannabis Strategic Ventures
(“Cannabis Strategic”), Bensheng Li, Fong Simon Yu, CAXYH LLC, CAYFD LLC, CAMYG
LLC, CAMG LLC, CAJYQNG LLC, and Does 1 through 20, alleging seventeen causes of
action for: (1) fraud, (2) investment fraud, (3) breach of written contract, (4) breach of oral contract, (5) money had
and recieved, (6) damage to personal property, (7) intentional infliction of
emotion distress, (8) civil extortion, (9) unfair competition (10) avoidance of
fraudulent transfer, (11) avoidance of fraudulent transfer, (12) avoidance of
fraudulent transfer, (13) avoidance of fraudulent transfer, (14) avoidance of
fraudulent transfer, (15) avoidance of fraudulent transfer, (16) avoidance of
fraudulent transfer, (17) avoidance of fraudulent transfer, and (18) avoidance
of fraudulent transfer.
TENTATIVE RULING
Moving
Parties’ motion to strike is GRANTED. CADM and Gu’s amended cross-complaint
filed on July 10, 2023, is ordered stricken in its entirety.
REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
Moving Parties’ request for judicial notice for Exhibits E-K is granted
pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).
DISCUSSION
Moving
Parties move to strike the cross-complaint filed by CADM Inc. (“CADM”) and
Jianqiang Gu (“Gu”) on July 10, 2023. Plaintiffs Leafire Inc. and Llullu LLC
filed a notice of joinder on July 25, 2023. Although not sequentially titled,
the subject cross-complaint is the second amended cross-complaint. CADM and Gu
filed an initial cross-complaint on December 22, 2020, and a first amended
cross-complaint on April 16, 2021.
Code of Civil Procedure section
428.50 provides: “(a) A party shall file a cross-complaint against any
of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her
before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or cross-complaint. [¶] (b)
Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a
date for trial. [¶] (c) A party shall obtain leave
of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b). Leave may be
granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the
action.”
“If
the complaint is amended, a copy of the amendments shall be filed, or the court
may, in its discretion, require the complaint as amended to be filed, and a
copy of the amendments or amended complaint must be served upon the defendants
affected thereby. The defendant shall answer the amendments, or the complaint
as amended, within 30 days after service thereof, or such other time as the
court may direct, and judgment by default may be entered upon failure to
answer, as in other cases. For the purposes of this subdivision, ‘complaint’ includes a cross-complaint, and ‘defendant’ includes a person against whom a
cross-complaint is filed.” (Code Civ. Proc. §
471.5, subd. (a).)
Plaintiffs
filed a fifth amended complaint on April 3, 2023. CADM and Gu filed their
answer and amended cross-complaint on July 10, 2023. CADM and Gu’s amended
cross-complaint is untimely as to Plaintiffs. Further, the cross-complaint is
procedurally defective as to Moving Parties. First, Moving Parties are not
plaintiffs or cross-complaints in the fifth amended complaint filed by
Plaintiffs. Additionally, CADM and Gu have failed to seek leave to file a
cross-complaint outside of the time set forth in section 428.50.
Moving
Parties’ motion to strike is granted.
CONCLUSION
Moving
Parties’ motion to strike is GRANTED. CADM and Gu’s amended cross-complaint
filed on July 10, 2023, is ordered stricken in its entirety.
Moving Parties
to give notice.
Dated: August 10,
2023 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court
indicating their
intention to submit.
Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely. alhdeptx@lacourt.org