Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCP00275, Date: 2025-01-21 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 23AHCP00275    Hearing Date: January 21, 2025    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

SHANGHAI TONGSHENG INVESTMENT CO., LTD.,

                    Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

ZHOU XIAOGUANG, et al.,

 

                    Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 23AHCP00275

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: NONPARTY WESLEY H. AVERY’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

January 21, 2025

 

I.            INTRODUCTION

On November 6, 2024, nonparty Wesley H. Avery (“Intervenor”), as the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee for defendant Yu Yunxin (“Yu”), filed this motion for leave to intervene in this action. A copy of the proposed complaint-in-intervention is attached as Exhibit 1 to the motion. On January 9, 2025, plaintiff Shanghai Tongsheng Investment Co., Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) filed a notice of non-opposition to this motion.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or by ex parte application. The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (c).) The court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if a provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene, or the person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person’s ability to protect that interest, unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties. (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1).) The court may, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if the person has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both. (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(2).)

“The trial court has the discretion to allow intervention where the proper procedures are followed, provided: (1) the intervenor has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation, (2) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the case, and (3) the reasons for intervention outweigh opposition by the existing parties.” (Hinton v. Beck (2009) 176 Cal.4th 1378, 1382-1383.) “A person has a direct interest justifying intervention in litigation where the judgment in the action of itself adds or detracts from his legal rights without reference to rights and duties not involved in the litigation.” (Continental Vinyl Products Corp. v. Mead Corp. (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 543, 549.)

III.        DISCUSSION

Intervenor is the appointed bankruptcy trustee in a pending involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy action concerning Yu that was filed by various creditors, including Plaintiff. (Motion, p. 4, Ex. 4.) Intervenor argues that his intervention is necessary because the parties to this action have stipulated to (and the Court has ordered) the distribution of $4.6 million in proceeds from Yu’s sale of certain property that is currently held with Rowland Escrow. (Motion, p. 2.) As the funds are property of the bankruptcy estate, Intervenor moves to intervene and distribute property from Yu’s bankruptcy estate. (11 U.S.C. §§ 541; 542.) Intervenor argues that the $4.6 million, as property of the bankruptcy estate, must be delivered to him in order to administer and distribute assets to Yu’s creditors.

Only Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition. No other response was filed by any other parties. Given the lack of opposition and the authority cited by Intervenor regarding his role as the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee, Intervenor has established his right to intervene and recover property belonging to Yu’s bankruptcy estate.

IV.        CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Intervenor’s motion is GRANTED. Intervenor is ordered to file the proposed complaint-in-intervention with 5 court days.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 21st day of January 2025

 

 

 

 

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.