Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 18PSCV00192, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. R at 909-802-1117 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 18PSCV00192    Hearing Date: October 3, 2022    Dept: R

Troy Trang, et al. v. CC Royal Services Inc., et al. (18PSCV00192)

 

 

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants TROY TRANG (“Trang”) and LING YIN (“Yin”) MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT (CCP 1209) AND FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF COURT ORDERS

            Responding Party: Defendant, Shu Wang

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants TROY TRANG (“Trang”) and LING YIN (“Yin”) MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT (CCP 1209) AND FOR SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF COURT ORDERS is DENIED.

Background

This matter arises out of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Shu Wang’s (“Wang” or “Defendant”) purchase of the real property (“Property”) from Plaintiffs Troy Trang (“Trang”) and Ling Yin (“L. Yin” or “Plaintiff”).[1] According to the Agreement, the sellers/Plaintiff had seven (7) days after the close of escrow to deliver possession of the home to Defendant. In addition to purchasing the Property, Defendant Wang purportedly paid $185,000 to certain furniture which was in the home. However, when Defendant took possession of the home, the furniture had been allegedly taken by Plaintiff.

 

On September 12, 2019, Trang and L. Yin filed a Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), asserting a cause of action against Defendants Wang and Does 1-10 for:

 

            1. Conversion[2]

 

On February 6, 2020, Wang filed an amended cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Yan Hsing Yin (“Y. Yin”),[3] Trang, L. Yin, and Roes 1-10 for:

 

            1. Breach of Contract (v. Y. Yin and L. Yin only)

            2. Conversion[4]

            3. Intentional Misrepresentation (v. Y Lin and L. Yin only)

            4. False Promise (v. Y. Lin and L. Yin only)

 

On July 24, 2020, the court sustained L. Yin’s demurrer to the first cause of action in Wang’s amended cross-complaint without leave to amend.

 

On September 3, 2021, Defendant Wang filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Deposition

Testimony and Request for Sanctions.

 

On September 15, 2021, Plaintiff Yin filed an Opposition to Defendant Wang’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony.

 

On September 28 2021, Plaintiff Troy Trang filed a Motion for Sanctions in the amount of $1,860.00 against Defendant Shu Wang and her attorneys, Mr. Michael Killackey and Mr. Ryan Marden.

 

On October 6, 2021, Defendant Wang filed her Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Deposition Testimony.

 

On October 14, 2021, the court:

 

i.                    Denied Defendant Wang’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s TAC,

 

ii.  Denied Defendant Wang’s Motion for Summary Adjudication on the First Amended

Complaint, and

 

iii. Continued the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Further Deposition

Testimony for lack of clarity as to whether the motion was timely filed because Defendant did not provide the court with any information as to when the court reporter gave notice that the transcript of the June 14, 2021 was ready for L.Yin’s review and signing, or whether (and when) L. Yin reviewed, made changes to, and/or signed the transcript. 

 

On December 3, 2021, Defendant Wang’s Counsel, Ryan K. Marden, filed a Declaration in Support of the Motion to Compel Further Deposition Testimony of Lin Ying, correcting the deficiencies noted in the court’s October 14, 2021 order.

 

On December 28, 2021, the court GRANTED Defendant Wang’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Further Deposition Testimony.

 

On January 4, 2022, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Ling Yin filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

On January 12, 2022, the court Denied Troy Trang’s Motion for Sanctions because lawyers or other self-represented litigants (appearing on their own behalf) cannot recover attorney fees as discovery sanctions. (Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1179) (emphasis added). That same day, the court continued the hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration to March 10, 2022.

On February 4, 2022, Plaintiffs Troy Trang and Ling Yin filed a Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to CCP Section 128.7.

 

On July 6, 2022, the court denied Defendant’s motion to quash.

 

Discussion

 

Plaintiffs bring forth the motion on the grounds that Defendant and her attorneys “willfully violated the Court’s order issued on July 6, 2022 by (1) modifying/altering the language and term of the Court’s order in their filing of the Notice of Ruling on July 6, 2022 and dispensing such notice to third parties, and (2) conscious disregard for the Court’s order for Bank of America to produce Wang’s bank statements/documents/information related to the $35,000 check payment (Check #150).” (Motion p. 2.)

 

In Opposition, Defendant explains that in compliance with the court’s meet and confer order, counsel for Defendant proposed the services of John Irwin, Esq. However, Plaintiffs, on multiple occasions, rejected the retention of Mr. Irwin or any third-party neutral other than Bank of America despite their previous agreement to Mr. Irwin and despite Defendant agreeing to be responsible for the entire cost of the third-party neutral. (Opp. p. 4.) As such, Plaintiffs proposed Defendant obtain a copy of her own bank statement, make redactions and produce it to Plaintiffs. On July 28, 2022, Defendant did so. (Ex. 4.) Despite multiple attempts to confirm with Plaintiffs that a similarly redacted copy of this statement from Bank of America would satisfy their needs relative to the subpoena, their repeated attempts to meet and confer were met with silence.

 

Effectively, if the court’s tentative focused on the account number being concealed and Defendant and thereafter Defendant complied by producing a redacted check showing that that Check No. 150 was deposited from a certain bank account, the court is uncertain as to the purpose of this motion.

To the extent that Plaintiffs disagree with Defendant’s narration, it has failed to Reply (as of Friday, September 30, 2022).

 

Conclusion

 

Therefore, the motion is denied.


[1]           Plaintiff Ling Yin is in pro per. 

 

            [2]           According to Plaintiff, Sellers/Plaintiffs had seven days after the close of escrow to deliver possession of the home to Defendant Wang, which was December 3, 2018. Sellers Trang and Yin did not finish vacating the home when Defendant Wang “intentionally changed out the lock on December 4, 2018 and barred them from retrieving their personal properties that were left inside.” (Opp. p. 4: 12-15.)

 

            [3]           Yin’s parents are Yan Hsing Yin and Jin Lan Yin.

 

            [4]           Defendant Wang filed an Amended Cross-Complaint alleging that she had purchased certain personal properties from the home and that Trang and Yin had converted them when she took possession of the home.