Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV00808, Date: 2024-01-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV00808    Hearing Date: January 30, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On April 11, 2023, plaintiff Jinhua Shen aka John Shen (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Xiao Li Zong aka Sherry Ho aka Sherry Zong (“Zong”) and Alvin Tzuen Chung Ho (“Ho”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff asserts causes of action for breach of written contract and breach of oral contract and a common count for money paid out or lent.

On April 12, 2017, Zong allegedly executed a promissory note for 7 million renminbi (“RMB”), which is approximately $1,018,500, without interest (the “Note”). (Compl., ¶¶ 10-11.) The Note is secured by shares in a hotel in Taiwan, the Kenting Hotel. (Compl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges that Zong has failed to make payments as required by the note despite multiple demands made throughout 2018 and 2022. (Compl., ¶ 13.) Zong’s husband, Ho, eventually made a partial repayment in the amount of 90,000 RMB after Plaintiff demanded a detailed repayment plan. (Compl., ¶¶13-14.)

On September 18, 2023, the Court scheduled an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal for forum non conveniens. Plaintiff’s brief was due by October 27, 2023, and Defendants were permitted to file a response by November 13, 2023.

Plaintiff filed a brief with supporting declarations on October 27, 2023. Plaintiff also filed a reply brief on November 16, 2023, with a request for judicial notice and a supplemental declaration. Defendants filed an opposition brief with the Court on December 14, 2023.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just. (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.30, subd. (a).) The doctrine of forum non conveniens “is an equitable doctrine invoking the discretionary power of a court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.” (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.) 

A trial court considering a forum non conveniens issue engages in a two-step process, the first of which is to determine whether a suitable alternative forum exists. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.) Where there is a suitable alternative forum, the court proceeds to the next step, consideration of the private interests of the parties and the public interest in keeping the case in California. (Stangivik, supra, at pp. 751, 754.) A case-by-case examination of the parties, their dispute and the relationship of each to the state of California is the heart of the required analysis. (Ibid.)

“The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.) The residences of the plaintiff and the defendant are relevant, and a corporate defendant's principal place of business is presumptively a convenient forum. (Id. at pp. 754–755.) The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening California courts, protecting potential jurors who should not be called on to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing ties of California and the alternate jurisdiction to the litigation. (Stangvik, supra, at p. 751

III.        DISCUSSION

Plaintiff explains that Zong executed the Note in the city of Arcadia and that it was his understanding that some of the proceeds were to be used for Defendants’ businesses in Los Angeles County. (Shen Decl., ¶ 11-12.) Plaintiff further claims that Defendants reside in Pasadena in a property with an estimated value of $3.3 million and operate four limited liability companies in California. Plaintiff also states that at the time of the loan, he understood that he would be able to place a judgment lien on Defendants’ Pasadena residence. (Id., ¶ 9.) Zong guaranteed the loan by offering shares of Kenting Hotel in Taiwan, which has since been foreclosed on. (Id., ¶ 13.) A copy of the Note, which is in Chinese, and a court certified translation is attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s declaration.

In opposition, Defendants first argue that the action should be litigated in Taiwan or China because Plaintiff cannot write or read in English and Plaintiff lacks a valid visa. (Opp. pp. 2-3.) However, Defendants offer no independent evidence of their claims of Plaintiff’s illiteracy or visa-related inability to pursue this litigation in California.

Defendants also claim that it is “impossible” to conduct discovery in this jurisdiction. But Defendants live in Los Angeles County and can be deposed here, and Plaintiff is willing to travel and participate in the litigation.

Last, Defendants argue that there is no evidence that the money was wired to Los Angeles and demand that Plaintiff: (1) explain why the alleged loan was for RMB if the money was supposed to be used in Los Angeles and (2) prove that the money was ever wired to Los Angeles. (Opp., p. 2.) Defendants do not address the allegation that the contract was formed in Los Angeles County or explain why it is significant whether the money was eventually used in Los Angeles. Instead, Defendants appear to demand that Plaintiff provide proof of performance, which is premature at this stage.

IV.         CONCLUSION

The Court discharges the OSC re: Dismissal and sets a Case Management Conference for _______.

The Court acknowledges that Defendants wish to request an order requiring Plaintiff to post an undertaking as an out-of-state litigant pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1030. But this issue is beyond the scope of this hearing and should be the subject of a separate noticed motion.

Dated this 30th day of January, 2024

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.