Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2022-00003237-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 15, 2024

02/16/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00003237-CU-MC-CTL LI VS LUO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Dong Luo, Han Yu, Chao Yu, and Li Chen's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

Plaintiff Deli Li's motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, is DENIED.

Defendant's MSJ Summary judgment is appropriate when all the papers submitted by the parties show there is no triable issue of material fact as to any cause of action and the moving party is therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) A defendant who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing each and every alleged cause of action is without merit. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) A defendant can meet that burden by showing one or more elements of each cause of action cannot be established or that there is a complete defense to each cause of action. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Here, Defendants have moved for summary judgment only; thus, if material factual disputes exist as to any of Plaintiff's six causes of action, summary judgment must be denied.

First, Defendant Dong Luo has failed to meet his burden of production with respect to Plaintiff's sixth cause of action for breach of contract. Defendant Luo argues that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations and by collateral estoppel. The court disagrees. As to the statute of limitations, Defendant Luo fails to cite any legal authority that would support his remarkable assertion that the Chinese statute of limitations for contract claims should apply (apparently, three years), rather than the four-year period under California law. Applying the four-year period to the allegation that the contract was breached in August 2017, and factoring in tolling under Emergency Rule 9, Plaintiff's breach of written contract cause of action is timely.

As to the collateral estoppel argument, the court is completely unpersuaded that Defendant Luo can simultaneously argue the Chinese judgments sought to be enforced by Plaintiff are unenforceable based on lack of due process (both systemic and specific) while also being final judgments on the merits for purposes of claim or issue preclusion. In addition to the unfairness inherent in the argument, Defendant Luo has failed to provide any non-general legal authority to support his position. Because Defendant Luo has failed to meet his burden on at least one cause of action, summary judgment as to him must be denied.

Second, summary judgment must also be denied as to the remaining defendants. The only causes of Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3076963  10 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  LI VS LUO [IMAGED]  37-2022-00003237-CU-MC-CTL action applicable to these defendants are the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action, which all relate to Plaintiff's claim that Defendants helped Defendant Luo hide his assets by participating in various fraudulent transfers in order to make Defendant Luo judgment proof and thereby avoid collection on the Chine judgments. Defendants argue that these claims are solely premised on the Chinese judgments, and if the Chinese judgments are unenforceable (and the motion is dedicated to showing they are) then the fraudulent transfer claims must fail. Defendants are incorrect; the claims may also be premised on the breach of written contract cause of action, which seeks the same 29 million Chinese Yuan in alleged damages as the first second and second cause of action related to the Chinese judgments. As explained above, that cause of action survives summary judgment. Because Defendants have otherwise failed to meet their burden to show the purported transfers were not fraudulent efforts to hide assets, summary judgment as the remaining defendants must be denied.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied.

Plaintiff's MSJ/MSA As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff's notice of motion for summary adjudication and separate statement are defective. A party may move for summary adjudication only as to a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for punitive damages, or an issue of duty. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) Unless the parties stipulate otherwise (see Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (t)(1)(A)), the court lacks authority to summarily adjudicate discreet issues or elements that do not completely dispose of a cause of action. (Catalano v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 91, 97 ['The purpose of the enactment of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (f) was to stop the practice of piecemeal adjudication of facts that did not completely dispose of a substantive area.']; Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 243-244 [there is no statutory basis 'for an order summarily adjudicating [whether] a party breach a duty.']. Consistent with this principle, the California Rules of Court require a moving party to specifically state in the notice of motion 'the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty' that are the subject of the motion, and that they 'be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.' (CRC 3.1350, subd. (b).) Here, Plaintiff's notice of motion is improper, as he seeks to adjudicate two issues: 1) 'that the District Court Judgment and the Hight Court Judgment issued in China are money judgments that are entitled to recognition by the Courts of California;' and 2) 'on [Plaintiff's] claim that Defendant Dong Luo fraudulently conveyed the real property located at 5310 Sweetwater Trails, San Diego, CA 92130 to Defendant Han Yu.' Plaintiff then compounded his error by framing his separate statement as adjudicating 'Issue One: Recognition of the China Judgments' and 'Issue Two: Fradulent [sic] Conveyance of the Sweetwater Trails Property,' neither of which are verbatim recitations of 'issues' as stated in the notice of motion, and neither of which refer to a single cause of action, affirmative defense, claim for damages, or issue of duty. These procedural failures have made it very difficult for the court to effectively and efficiently parse out which causes of action Plaintiff seeks to summarily adjudicate, and which assertedly undisputed material facts are applicable to each element of each cause of action. The court declines to overlook these failures; as such, the court will treat Plaintiff's motion as one solely for summary judgment.

A plaintiff who moves for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing there is no defense to each of his or her causes of action by presenting evidence proving each element of each cause of action. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) As the party who would bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence at trial, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment 'must present evidence that would require a reasonable trier of fact to find any underlying material fact more likely than not.' (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 851.) Here, Plaintiff has failed to meet his initial burden of production with respect to his sixth cause of action for breach of written contract. Indeed, this cause of action is not even mentioned in the motion, which necessarily means Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden on that claim. Thus, summary judgment must Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3076963  10 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  LI VS LUO [IMAGED]  37-2022-00003237-CU-MC-CTL be denied.

Notwithstanding the above, the court finds it necessary to highlight that even were it to consider Plaintiff's 'issue' arguments, which primarily are directed at the enforceability of the Chinese judgments, his motion would still be denied. First, Plaintiff improperly relies on his own complaint as evidence for his claims. (See, e.g., College Hospital Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 720, fn. 7.) Second, Plaintiff improperly relies on his March 2023 declaration filed in connection with the prior opposition (advanced by Plaintiff's former attorney) to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. By his own attestation, that declaration was neither prepared nor reviewed by either Plaintiff or his purported representative, Qi Luo, and is therefore inadmissible to prove Plaintiff's claims. Finally, Plaintiff is simply incorrect that Defendants have the burden to prove, in opposition to his motion for summary judgment, the Chinese judgments are not enforceable. Rather, had Plaintiff properly complied with the various rules governing summary judgment and adjudication motions and met his burden of production, Defendants' opposing burden would have been to show that a material factual dispute exists that requires resolution by a trier of fact. Based on the evidence before the court (particularly Defendants' expert evidence), it is likely that such a dispute of material fact exists.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3076963  10