Judge: Ralph C. Hofer, Case: 24NNCV01315, Date: 2024-10-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24NNCV01315 Hearing Date: October 11, 2024 Dept: D
TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar: 9
Date: 10/11/2024
Case No: 24 NNCV01315 Trial Date: None Set
Case Name: Meng, et al. v. Invest L.A. Regional Center, LLC, et al.
DEMURRER
Moving Party: Defendants Invest L.A. Regional Center, LLC, Singpoli Financial Services, Inc. and Singpoli Group, LLC
Responding Party: Plaintiffs Qingzhang Meng, Jingdong Liu, Meng Chen, Ning Zhang,
Chun Chung Yeung, Heng Yang, Yanyun Xia, Lewei Wang,
Xinhua Guo and Ruojing Zhang
Meet and Confer? Yes
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Sustain demurrer to Complaint
CAUSES OF ACTION: from Complaint
1) Breach of Fiduciary Duties
2) Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duties
3) Breach of Limited Partnership Agreement
4) Violation of California Limited Partnership Act
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
Plaintiffs Qingzhang Meng, Jingdong Liu, Meng Chen, Ning Zhang, Chun Chung Yeung, Heng Yang, Yanyun Xia, Lewei Wang, Xinhua Guo, and Ruojing Zhang allege that they are investors in Marina Del Rey EB5, LP, a Partnership, and that they each signed a subscription agreement and paid a subscription price of $500,000 to become limited partners in the Partnership in connection with the EB-5 Program.
Plaintiffs allege that defendant Invest L.A. Regional Center is the General Partner in the partnership, and defendants Singpoli Financial Services, Inc. (SFS) and Singpoli Group, LLC (Singpoli) are Affiliates of the General Partner. Plaintiffs bring this action on the Partnership’s behalf against defendant General Partner for allegedly orchestrating a self-dealing transaction to enrich itself with $17 million of Partnership funds. Plaintiffs also seek relief against the Affiliates, SFS and Singpoli, for allegedly aiding and abetting the General Partner’s breach of fiduciary duty.
Plaintiff also allege that the General Partner violated its book and records obligations, and unlawfully refuses to provide plaintiffs with the books and records regarding the reinvestment of Partnership funds into the General Partner’s Affiliate, in order to hide from investors, the full scope of the General Partner’s self-dealing and other wrongdoing.
ANALYSIS:
The Court notes that on July 15, 2024, plaintiffs in this matter filed a Notice of Related Case, indicating that this case is related to a case, Zhang, et al. v. Invest L.A. Regional Center, LLC, et al., LASC Case No. 23 AHCV00773, filed on April 7, 2023.
The Notice indicates that the other case involves the same parties and is based on the same or similar claims, arises from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, involves claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, and is likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. [Notice of Related Case, para. 1 (h)].
It does not appear that the Notice of Related Case has been filed in the other case.
Under CRC Rule 3.300 (d) “The Notice of Related Case must be filed in all pending cases listed in the notice and must be served on all parties in those cases.” Under subdivision (e), the filing and service must be “as soon as possible, but no later than 15 days after the facts concerning the existence of related cases become known.”
Subdivision (h)(1)(A) provides, “Where all the cases listed in the notice are unlimited civil cases,…the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases must be ordered related and assigned to his or her department.”
Here, since the listed related case was filed on April 7, 2023, prior to the filing of this matter on May 1, 2024, the related case determination must be made by the judge in the other case. This determination should be made before the current demurrer is considered by this court on its merits.
Plaintiffs are accordingly ordered to file and serve the Notice of Related Case filed in this matter in accordance with CRC Rule 3.300 (d). Under subdivision (g), within 5 days after service on a party of a Notice of Related Case, the party may serve and file a response.
Plaintiffs are ordered to seek a related case determination in the other case by no later than November 22, 2024, and sets an Order to Show Cause Re: Related Case Determination for that date.
The court notes from the file that this matter is currently set for a Case Management Conference on December 17, 2024. The court will need a related case determination prior to the date of the Case Management Conference.
The hearing on the demurrer will be continued to December 13, 2024, and will be heard only if in advance of the hearing, a related case determination determining the matters are not related is obtained.
RULING:
Defendants’ Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint or, In the Alternative, Motion to Stay Action is CONTINUED to December 13, 2024.
Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file and serve the Notice of Related Case filed in this matter on July 15, 2024, in the case identified in that Notice, in accordance with CRC Rule 3.300 (d). The parties are further ORDERED to take all steps necessary to obtain a related case determination in this matter by no later than November 22, 2024.
The Court sets an Order to Show Cause Re: Related Case Determination for November 22, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.
DEPARTMENT D IS CONTINUING TO CONDUCT AND ENCOURAGE
AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES
Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.
If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.