Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 20VECV00119, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20VECV00119    Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: W

HSIU-FANG LAI, et al. vs PARADISE LODGE WINNETKA, INC.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE CLAIMS AGAINST PI LIEN FONG’S PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE

Date of Hearing:        August 17, 2022                                Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              W                                                        Case No.:        20VECV00119

Moving Party:            Plaintiffs Hsin-Hsiao Scott Wang and Hsiu-Fang Lai

Responding Party:     Defendants Paradise Lodge Winnetka, Inc.; 20128 Roscoe Boulevard, LLC; Paradise Lodge General Partnership; Pi Lien Fong; Minghua Fong; Ming-Hui Fong; Allison Baskett; Mu- Lan Kuo; and Martin Kuo

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs allege they entered into a joint venture whereby Plaintiff Hsiu-Fang Lai, Defendant Pi Lien Fong, and Defendants Martin C. Kuo and Mulan Kuo each contributed $200,000 in exchange for a one-third ownership interest in the Motel. Plaintiffs further allege the Defendants managed the operations of the Motel to the exclusion of the Plaintiffs and as part of their misappropriation of the revenues generated by the business, the Defendants formed a number of business entities, including defendant entities Paradise Lodge Winnetka, Inc., 20128 Roscoe Boulevard, LLC, and Paradise Lodge General Partnership. Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on January 28, 2020.

On February 24, 2020, Plaintiffs Hsui-Fang Lai and Hsin-Hsiao (Scott) Wang filed a First Amended Complaint against Paradise Lodge Winnetka, Inc., 20128 Roscoe Boulevard, LLC, Paradise Lodge General Partnership, Pi Lien Fong, Ming-Hua Fong, Allison Baskett, and Mu-Lan Kuo Martin Kuo asserting causes of action for (1) Partition of Real Property; (2) Accounting; (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (4) Breach of Partnership Agreement; (5) Declaratory Relief; and (6) Unjust Enrichment.

On April 20, 2020, default was entered against Defendants 20128 Roscoe Boulevard, LLC and Paradise Lodge Winnetka, Inc. On April 22, 2020 and April 23, 2020, default was entered against Defendants Paradise Lodge General Partnership and Pi Lien Fong respectively. The default was set aside on January 27, 2021.

On May 13, 2020, Defendants Paradise Lodge Winnetka, Inc.; 20128 Roscoe Boulevard, LLC; Paradise Lodge General Partnership; Pi Lien Fong; Minghua Fong; Ming-Hui Fong; Allison Baskett; Mu-Lan Kuo; and Martin Kuo filed an answer to the FAC.

[Tentative] Ruling

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Claims Against Pi Lie Fong’s Personal Representative is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Plaintiffs request this court take judicial notice of the following documents: (1) Ex Parte Petition for Letters of Special Administration (Venezia Decl., Exh. B); (2) Order for Probate – Order Appointing Special Administrator (Venezia Decl., Exh. C); (3) Creditor’s Claim (Venezia Decl., Exh. D); (4) Proof of Service for Creditor’s Claim (Venezia Decl., Exh. E); and (5) Letters – Special Administration (Venezia Decl., Exh. F).

The court grants Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs Hsin-Hsiao Scott Wang and Hsiu-Fang Lai move the court to allow Plaintiffs to continue their claims against Pi Lien Fong’s estate and personal representative. Plaintiffs make the motion pursuant to Section 377.41 of the California Code of Civil Procedure on the grounds Plaintiffs have filed and served their claims in Ms. Fong’s probate case, which have been ignored and are thus treated as rejected, in compliance with the requirements of Part 4 of Division 7 of the Probate Code.

Plaintiffs argue claims asserted against a decedent may be asserted against the decedent’s personal representative. (CCP § 377.40.) As a result, because no one has taken action in response to Plaintiffs’ claims, the court shall treat Plaintiffs’ claims as rejected.

Defendants oppose the motion on three main grounds: (1) the civil division is not the proper court to rule on Plaintiffs’ motion; (2) the court lacks jurisdiction to hear or to rule on Plaintiffs’ motion; (3) no one has authority to accept or reject plaintiffs’ claim; and (4) there is no injury or irreparable harm to plaintiffs for having to wait until a personal representative is appointed by the Probate court. The court notes that there is a pending petition to appoint Ms. Fang’s daughter, which is set for hearing on  October 13, 2022 in probate court, Case No. 22STPB01334.

The court agrees with Defendants. It is not within this court’s discretion to determine whether Plaintiffs can proceed with their claims against Defendant Pi Lien Fong’s estate or personal representative. This motion must be brought before the probate court. Moreover, even if this court could hear this motion, it appears that Defendant Wang has only been appointed as Special Administrator for the sole power to accept service of creditor claims filed against this estate. (Venezia Decl., Exh. C.) There is nothing within the Probate court’s order stating Mr. Wang is the personal representative (or decedent’s successor in interest), which would allow Plaintiffs to assert a claim against the decedent. (See CCP § 377.40.) While the Plaintiffs may treat the claim as rejected, it must be after the personal representative or the court or judge has refused or neglected to act on the claim within 30 days. (Prob. Code §9256.) It does not appear that this is the case here.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue Claims Against Pi Lie Fong’s Personal Representative is DENIED.