Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 20STCV49262, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV49262 Hearing Date: April 21, 2025 Dept: 45
zhang, ET AL. v. zhang, et al.
MOTION to sever
Date of Hearing: 4/21/2025 Trial
Date: None set.
Department: 45 Case
No.: 20STCV49262
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Xiaoke Yang
Responding Party: Unopposed
BACKGROUND
This action arises out of several business
transactions between Plaintiffs and Defendants. On September 20, 2021,
Plaintiffs Yifan Zhang and Xiaoke Yang (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the
operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) against Defendants Meiju Group, LLC;
Overseas Investment, LLC; Super HK Management, LLC; Impressive Catering
Management, LLC; Union Law Center, APC; Union Law Center, LLC; Shujun Zhang;
Huiyi Xie; Jinli Wang; James Deng Yang; Minxi Holden; Vivian Luo (collectively,
“Defendants”); and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive for 19 causes of action for
Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent
Concealment, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach
of Fiduciary Duty, Conversion, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress,
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Professional Negligence, Breach of
Written Agreement, and Common Count.
The SAC alleges that Defendants engaged
in a scheme to deceive and defraud Plaintiff Yifan Zhang by making contrary
representations regarding Yifan Zhang’s $500,000.00 capital investment in Good
Fortune Supermarket of CA3 LP and the Good Fortune Supermarket Project. (SAC ¶¶26-49.)
The SAC further alleges that Defendants made false representations to Plaintiff
Xiaoke Yang concerning the purchase and merger of the Hong Kong Supermarket
with Xiaoke Yang’s company in China. (Id. at ¶¶50-76.)
On November 1, 2021, Defendants Shujun
Zhang, Meiju Group, LLC, Overseas Investment, LLC, Super HK Management, LLC,
and Vivian Luo filed Answers to the SAC.
On December 22, 2021, Defendants Shujun
Zhang, Meiju Group, LLC, and Overseas Investment, LLC filed a Cross-Complaint
against Yaoqin Wei for (1) Equitable Indemnity and (2) Contribution.
On March 8, 2022, Cross-Defendant Wei
filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint.
On October 19, 2021, Defendants James
Deng Yang and Union Law Center, APC filed a Demurrer to the SAC. The matter was
fully briefed and came for hearing on September 15, 2022. The Court overruled
the Demurrer as to the fifteenth cause of action for Professional Negligence
and sustained without leave to amend as to the first, second, third, fourth,
fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth,
fourteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth causes of
action.
On September 26, 2022, Defendants James
Deng Yang and Union Law Center, APC filed their Answer to the SAC.
On May 21, 2024, Defendants Meiju
Group, LLC, Overseas Investment, LLC, Super HK Management, LLC’s Answers to the
SAC were stricken.
On January 14, 2025, Plaintiff Xiaoke Yang
filed the instant Motion to Sever the Action. The motion is unopposed.
[Tentative] Ruling
Plaintiff Xiaoke Yang’s Motion to Sever
the Action is GRANTED.
LEGAL STANDARD
“There may be permissive joinder of
parties plaintiff under section 378 in two situations: (1) Where there exists both
a common interest in the subject of the action and any question of law
or fact common to all the plaintiffs, and (2) where there exists both a
right to relief arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions
and any common question of law or fact.” (Coleman v. Twin Coast Newspaper,
Inc. (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 650, 653 (internal citations omitted); see Code
Civ. Proc., § 378.)
“When parties have been joined under
Section 378 or 379, the court may make such orders as may appear just to
prevent any party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to undue expense, and
may order separate trials or make such other order as the interests of justice
may require.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 379.5; see also Pilliod v. Monsanto
Company (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 591, 625.)
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff Xiaoke Yang (“Yang”) moves
for an order severing his causes of action from the causes of action brought by
Plaintiff Yifan Zhang (“Zhang”) in the SAC. The motion is made on the grounds
that (1) the acts complained of by each Plaintiff against the Defendants are
unrelated and (2) Yang will be unfairly prejudiced because there is a
likelihood of confusion at trial because the two Plaintiffs have different
factual bases for their independent claims against each of the common
Defendants.
Yang contends that Plaintiffs’ claims
do not arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions. Likewise,
Yang contends there will be different witnesses, documents, and other evidence
as to each of the Plaintiffs’ claims. However, Yang does not point to any
allegations in the SAC to demonstrate how his claims differ from Zhang’s
claims. Nevertheless, the Court reviewed the SAC allegations and finds that
Plaintiffs’ claims do not arise out of the same transactions or occurrences.
Specifically, Zhang’s claims are related to business transactions and
misrepresentations with Defendants Meiju, LLC and Overseas Investment, LLC
involving the Good Fortune Supermarket of CA3 LP. (SAC ¶¶26-49.) Although
Yang’s claims are against the same defendants, they pertain to business
transactions and misrepresentations involving a merger of Yang’s company with
the Hong Kong Supermarket. (SAC ¶¶50-76.) Also, Zhang claims concern an EB-5
Visa application while Yang’s claims concern an EB-1C Visa application, which
are aimed at different class of immigrants. Moreover, the conduct alleged by
Zhang occurred in 2018 through 2019, while Yang’s alleged transactions with
defendants occurred in 2019 through 2020. Finally, Zhang nor the defendants
have not opposed the present motion, thus concede that there will be different
evidence as to each of the Plaintiffs’ claims.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, Plaintiff Xiaoke Yang’s Motion to Sever the Action is GRANTED.