Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV05605, Date: 2025-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV05605    Hearing Date: April 4, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Jusda Supply Chain Management Corporation (“Plaintiff”) alleges that it is in the business of acquiring, storing, and shipping large quantities of products manufactured offshore to large scale retailers in the United States.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Terence Tsang was the general manager of Plaintiff.  (FAC, ¶22.)  Plaintiff alleges that Tsang did not conduct any reviews prior to subcontracting with Defendants San Legend Logistics Inc. (“SLL”) and Global Transit Supplychain Inc. (“GTS”); instead, “TSANG merely completed a basic form of his own devise, based on the information provided to him by the subcontractor which bore no rational relationship to any formal, sub-contractual agreement.”  (Id., ¶¶13, 23.)  Plaintiff alleges that it entered into agreements with SLL and GTS through purchase orders and bill of ladings for the transportation and delivery of goods.  (Id., ¶24.)  Plaintiff alleges that it was under such arrangements that SLL was subcontracted to provide Plaintiff with local drayage and warehousing services and GTS was subcontracted to assist distributing Plaintiff’s wholesale product, sometime prior to November 2022.  (Id., ¶¶14-15.)  Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Tsang’s failure to recover Plaintiff’s advanced deposits paid to SLL and GTS, and SLL and GTS’s failure to repay the deposits, Plaintiff is damaged in the amount of $640,806.83.  (Id., ¶25.) 

Plaintiff also alleges that in November 2022, SLL subcontracted with Defendant Newegg Logistics Services, Inc. (“NLS”) to operate, manage, and otherwise oversee the warehousing services it had been providing to Plaintiff.  (Id., ¶34.)  Plaintiff alleges that SLL continued to bill Plaintiff for the services as if NLS did not exist.  (Id.) 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Sui Sum Lo aka Suisum Lo co-owns a residence with Tsang and that Lo, SLL, and GTS owe Plaintiff $640,806.83.  (Id., ¶¶6, 32.)

The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed February 6, 2025, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) common counts; (3) negligence; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) indemnification; (6) constructive fraud; and (7) aiding and abetting constructive fraud and deceit.

B.     Cross-Complaint

On February 14, 2025, Tsang filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant for: (1) total equitable indemnity; (2) partial equitable indemnity; (3) contribution and apportionment of fault; and (4) declaratory relief.

C.     Motion on Calendar

On March 7, 2025, specially appearing Global Transit Supplychain, Inc. (“GTS”) filed a motion to quash service of the summons, complaint, and FAC.

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION  

            GTS moves to quash service of the summons, complaint, and FAC. 

            The proof of service (filed November 8, 2024) states that GTS was served at business location 13975 Central Avenue, Unit B, Chino, CA 91710 through its authorized agent for service process Sui Sum Lo.  The documents were served by substituted service on November 6, 2024 at 1:20 p.m. by leaving the documents with receptionist Dulce M.  The documents were thereafter mailed on November 7, 2024.  Service was effectuated by Danny Sor, a registered California process server.  (Anton Decl., ¶3, Ex. 2 [POS].) 

            Ms. Lo provides her declaration in support of the motion.  Ms. Lo states that she was the former CEO of GTS and that GTS is currently a dissolved and terminated corporation as of February 23, 2024.  (Lo Decl., ¶¶1, 3, Ex. 1 [Secretary of State Certificate of Dissolution re GTS dated February 23, 2024].)  She states that after February 23, 2024, she was no longer an officer of GTS, had not connection to GTS, and had nothing to do with GTS.  (Id.)  She states that prior to February 23, 2024, the business location for GTS was at 13975 Central Avenue, but after February 24, 2024, that address was no longer a business location for the terminated and dissolved corporation of GTS, such that no business was conducted by GTS at that time.  (Id., ¶¶2, 4.)  Ms. Lo states that she learned that on November 6, 2024, that a summons and complaint had been delivered to the aforementioned address.  (Id., ¶5.)  She states that the papers were delivered to a receptionist at GTS’s former business location, she was not present at the address on the date of service, and nothing was served on her.  (Id.) 

            GTS does not dispute that the Central address was formerly its business address when it was an operational business.  GTS has shown that it has been a dissolved corporation since February 23, 2024—which was months prior to the purported service on November 6, 2024.  Further, Ms. Lo’s declaration made under the penalty of perjury states that GTS is no longer in business and that GTS does not conduct any business at the Central address.   Ms. Lo also states that she was not served with the summons and complaint on behalf of GTS. 

Based on the moving papers, the declaration of Ms. Lo, and the supporting evidence, the Court finds there is merit to granting this motion.  Further, the motion is not opposed.  Thus, the motion to quash service of the summons, complaint, and FAC is granted. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Specially Appearing Defendant Global Transit Supplychain Inc.’s motion to quash service of the summons and complaint is granted.  

Moving party shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: April 4, 2025                                                           ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court