Judge William A. Crowfoot, Case Number: 23AHCV02413, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02413, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling

On October 18, 2023, plaintiff George L. Young (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Gloria Gao (“Defendant”), Eric Wu aka Yue H. Wu (“Wu”), and Wei F. Li (“Li”) (collectively, “Defendants”) asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of contract, (2) accounting, (3) fraud, (4) conversion, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, his former mother-in law, was allowed to live at the property located at 1128 W. Duarte Road, #E in Arcadia, California (the “Property”) Property for free and agreed to collect and hold rent from a second bedroom on Plaintiff’s behalf. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay him $96,000 in rent that was allegedly collected on his behalf from between 2015 to October 2023 and owes him rent in excess of $300,000 because she allegedly defrauded Plaintiff into letting her live at the property without paying rent during this time. Plaintiff also alleges that Wu, his former brother-in-law, along with Wu’s wife, Li, were involved in a scheme with Defendant from 2009 to 2021 to convert rent money owed to him in the excess of $300,000. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants owed him a fiduciary duty as his in-laws and breached it by scheming to defraud him and withhold rent.

On January 11, 2024, Defendants filed a notice of related case identifying an action captioned George L. Young v. Grace Young pending in the Pasadena Courthouse with Case No. GD046639 (the “Dissolution Action”). The notice of related case states that the Property is an asset in the Dissolution Action and the family law court has jurisdiction over any and all issues related to the Property including the allocation of any income derived from the property.

On January 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition stating that the cases are not related because they do not involve the same parties.

On February 5, 2024, Defendant filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the family law court retains exclusive concurrent jurisdiction over the Property because Plaintiff claims it is community property while his wife, Defendant’s daughter, claims it is separate property. (Motion, p. 2.) Defendant also argues that the Complaint fails to state sufficient facts because: (1) no written contract was attached to the complaint and (2) Plaintiff does not have any ownership interest in the Property.

Defendant requests judicial notice of records in the Dissolution Action filed in 2010 as well as a grant deed and a quitclaim deed, both recorded on February 2, 2015. Defendant’s request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) A defendant may also move for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the complaint does not state facts sufficient o constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii).) The motion made be made as to the entire complaint or as to any of the causes of action stated therein. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(2)(A).) Like a demurrer, the grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings “shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (d).)

Defendant argues that the case should be dismissed because the substance of the claims in the Complaint arises entirely out of the purported rent owed to Plaintiff for the Property, which is subject to the jurisdiction of the family law court. The family law court has the power and obligation to determine the characterization of specific assets and divide them as community. (Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 961-962.) “After a family law court acquires jurisdiction to divide community property in a dissolution action, no other department of a superior court may make an order adversely affecting that division.” (Ibid.) Here, Plaintiff’s action requires a determination of a foundational issue that is currently pending in the family law court, which is the characterization of the Property as community or separate property (and, accordingly, Plaintiff’s interest in the Property and his standing to bring this action). It is undisputed that the Dissolution Action was filed before this instant action and that the family law court was the first to obtain jurisdiction. Therefore, to avoid inconsistent or conflicting rulings, the Court stays this action in its entirety pending resolution of the Dissolution Action. (See Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1456.)

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. On its own motion, the Court stays the action and schedules a status conference for September 12, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 of the Alhambra Courthouse. Parties are ordered to submit a joint statement regarding the status of this case and the Dissolution Action no later than 5 days before the hearing.

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.