Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22PSCV00619, Date: 2023-07-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV00619    Hearing Date: July 24, 2023    Dept: K

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Bin Yang’s Amended Motion to Dismiss “Cross-Complaint” and Motion for Sanction is DENIED.

Background[1]  

Plaintiff Bin Yang (“Yang”) asserts as follows:

Defendants Yuqin Li (“Li”) and Quojun Xuan (“Xuan”) own the property located at 10503-10505 Valley Blvd., El Monte, CA 91731. In November 2019, Yang began renting Suite 336 at 10505 Valley Blvd., El Monte, CA 91731, (“subject property”). Yang was sexually harassed and beat by the individual hired to perform security and maintenance at the building. Li and Xuan turned off the air condition to the subject property in an attempt to get Yang to pay more rent. Li and Xuan have failed to address habitability issues at the building. Li and Xuan discriminate against Yang on the basis of her sex.

On June 22, 2022, Yang filed a “Complaint of Frauds, Blackmail, Harassment, Assault, and Discrimination” against Li and Xuan.

On October 24, 2022, Li, Xuan and Yudao Management Inc. (“Yudao”) filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Yang for:

1.                  Assaulting Other Tenants in the Building

2.                  Assaulting and T[h]reaten Prope[r]ty Management Employees by Verbally and Physically

3.                  Intentionally Spread Rumors of Property Management for Bad Reputation

4.                  Sleeping and Cooking Inside of Her Rental Office Suite, Showering in the Restrooms

5.                  Emotional Distress Caused by Cross-Defendant to Xuan

An Order to Show Cause Re: Why the Cross-Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed for Cross-Complainant’s Failure to Prosecute and a Case Management Conference are set for July 24, 2023.

Discussion[2]

Yang seeks to dismiss the cross-complaint.

Yang’s motion reflects non-compliance with California Rules of Court (“CRC”) rules 3.1110, subdivision (a) (i.e., “[a] notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order”) and 3.1112, subdivision (d) (i.e., “[a] motion must: . . . (3) [b]riefly state the basis for the motion and the relief sought. . .”).

It is unclear to the court what legal authority Yang is relying on. The “Prayer” section of Yang’s motion on Page 8 seeks a dismissal “per Federal Rule 60(d)(3)[3];” the instant action, however, was filed in state court. It appears that Yang may be seeking a dismissal of the cross-complaint on the basis that cross-complainants have failed to properly serve her with same; however, this argument should be raised via a motion to quash service of summons and cross-complaint. It then appears that Yang is seeking a dismissal on the basis that Yudao is an improper cross-complainant because “Defendants closed YIM . . . a week before they filed ‘Cross Complaint’.” (Motion, P. 3). Yang has not attacked the pleadings via a demurrer on this basis, however. Further, there are three cross-complainants; as such, any concerns regarding Yudao’s ability to maintain the cross-complaint would not affect Li’s and Xuan’s ability to maintain same.

Incidentally, the court notes that Yudao was self-represented at the time the cross-complaint was filed, which was improper (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4^th 1141, 1145 [“a corporation, unlike a natural person, cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record”]); however, on April 18, 2023, a “Substitution of Attorney” was filed on its behalf. Yadao is now represented by counsel.

Yang subsequently appears to seek dismissal of the cross-complaint on the unsupported basis that Li and Xuan somehow “[b]roke into the court system” via Amazon to file their respective answers. Yang’s motion, in large part, consists of various grievances lodged against Li and Xuan, which is more appropriately set forth in a complaint.

Next, Yang appears to seek not only dismissal of the cross-complaint, but also a search warrant and for the court to order sanctions against Li and Xuan in the amount of $6,530,065.00. Both requests are devoid of any legal authority.

Finally, the court notes that on April 20, 2023, Yang filed a document entitled “Defenitive [sic] Evidence for Home Invation [sic] to Support Amended Motion to Dismiss ‘Cross-Complaint’ and Motion for Sanction.” The court declines to consider this additional briefing in support of the moving papers inasmuch as it was not requested by the court.

Yang’s motion is denied.

As an aside, the court notes that Yang has made repeated reference to a Case No. 20PSCV00877. The court instructs Yang to file a Notice of Related Case in the instant case and in Case No. 20PSCV00877 pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 3.300 forthwith.