Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 21PSCV00427, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21PSCV00427 Hearing Date: April 25, 2023 Dept: L
Plaintiff Yongyi Liu’s Motion to Deem Defendant Feng Li’s
Filing of a Pleading to Constitute a General Appearance is DENIED.
Background
Case No. 21PSCV00427
Plaintiff Yongyi Liu (“Liu”) alleges as follows: Liu is the equitable
owner and is in possession and control of the real property located at 636 East
Boxwood Lane, Azusa, California 91702 (“subject property”). On or about August
18, 2005, Liu and Feng Li (“F. Li”) F. Li had a child, Meixi Li (“Meixi”). At
the time Meixi was born and to date, F. Li was and has been married to another
woman. On July 27, 2012, F. Li purchased and gifted the subject property to Liu
to help Liu since she was raising Meixi by herself. Prior to and upon closing
of the escrow of the subject property, F. Li told Liu that he had purchased the
subject property for her and was giving it to her. F. Li told Liu he would
transfer title to the subject property at a future time. In or about early
August 2012, shortly before escrow closed on the subject property, F. Li asked
Liu to come to the United States with him so that he could transfer title on
the subject property from him to her and give possession of same to her. Liu
came with her mom, her other daughter Helin Xu (“Xu”), and Meixi and took
possession of the subject property; however, due to an unexpected event, F. Li
had to return to China before the transfer paperwork was completed. In or about
December 2013, F. Li came to the United States for a short trip; Liu was then
in China. F. Li promised to transfer title to the subject property to Liu when
they were both in the United States. In or about April 2014, F. Li was incarcerated
in China on a 13-year sentence. F. Li remains incarcerated. On March 27, 2021,
while still incarcerated, F. Li purportedly signed a grant deed granting the
subject property to Sunnyland International Group (“Sunnyland”). On or about
April 14, 2021, F. Li sent a Notice to Quit to Liu’s address in China, claiming
therein that the subject property was owned jointly by him and his wife, Jing
Li (“J. Li”), and that they had sold same to a third party. On April 16, 2021,
Xi Lin (“Lin”) went to Liu’s house and told Xu that Lin was the president of
Sunnyland and demanded possession of the subject property. Lin represented to
Xu that F. Li had transferred title of the subject property to Sunnyland to
settle a loan he owed to the company and placed a Notice to Quit on the front
door of the subject property. On April 26, 2021, Xu served a 30-day Notice to
Terminate Tenancy at Will on Liu.
On May 21, 2021, Liu filed a complaint, asserting causes of action
against Sunnyland, Lin, F. Li, J. Li and Does 1-50 for:
1. Quiet Title
2. Cancellation of Instrument
3. Declaratory Relief
On August 19, 2021, the court related and consolidated this case with
Case No. 21WCUD00362 and designated this case as the lead case.
On September 30, 2021, Sunnyland filed a cross-complaint, asserting
causes of action against Liu, F. Li and M. Li for:
1. Declaratory Relief
2. Quiet Title
3. Equitable Lien
4. Unjust Enrichment
A Case Management Conference is set for April 25, 2023.
Case No. 21WCUD00362
This is an unlawful detainer action regarding the subject property. On
June 10, 2021, Sunnyland filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Xu,
Liu and Does 1-10.
On August 19, 2021, the court related and consolidated Case No.
21PSCV0042 with this case and designated Case No. 21PSCV0042 as the lead case.
Discussion
Liu
moves the court deeming F. Li’s filing of an “Opposition to Application for
Service by Publication” as a general appearance.
Request
for Judicial Notice
The
court grants Liu’s Request for Judicial Notice.
Merits
“A defendant submits to the court's jurisdiction
by making a general appearance in an action. A general appearance is one in
which the defendant participates in the action in a manner which recognizes the
court's jurisdiction. If the defendant raises an issue for resolution or seeks
relief available only if the court has jurisdiction over the defendant, then
the appearance is a general one.” (Factor Health Management v. Superior
Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 246, 250.)
“A California defendant can preserve objections to
personal jurisdiction only by making a special appearance,
i.e., an appearance for the sole purpose of
objecting to the court's jurisdiction. A special appearance does not confer
jurisdiction on the court for any purpose other than determining the question
of jurisdiction over the person.” (In re Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245
Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) “[A] party's characterization of an appearance as
a ‘special appearance’ is not conclusive for purposes of determining whether
the party ‘consented’ to the court's personal jurisdiction by appearing in an
action.” (Szynalski v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th
1, 11.)
The
court determines that F. Li’s January 26, 2023 filing of an “Opposition to
Application for Service by Publication” did not constitute a general
appearance. The aforesaid opposition was limited to the issue of personal
jurisdiction and service and did not raise any issues for resolution or seek
relief available only if the court had jurisdiction over F. Li. The motion,
then, is denied.