Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: EC068342, Date: 2024-08-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: EC068342    Hearing Date: August 19, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

This breach of contract action was filed on March 29, 2018, by plaintiffs Jiang Ma and Hongshun Ma (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against defendant Tom Lee aka Rui Jin (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs allege that on or about January 8, 2016, they agreed to transfer certain shares of Shanya Mengyue Cultural Communications Co., Ltd. to Defendant in exchange for 42 million renminbi.  (Compl., ¶ 6.) Defendant made the first payment of 10 million RMB under the agreement and received the shares from Plaintiffs, but allegedly failed to make any other payments as required.  (Compl., ¶¶ 7-8.)  The agreement is attached as Exhibit A to the complaint and is written in Chinese.  (Compl., Ex. A.) 

On April 18, 2022, Defendant filed a motion for forum non conveniens arguing that California was not a suitable forum.  On May 24, 2022, the Honorable Colin Leis denied Defendant’s motion, stating that Defendant made “no showing that China has jurisdiction over this case (and the parties) and that this lawsuit would not be barred in China.” 

On May 3, 2023, Defendant made an oral request for dismissal at a final status conference.  On May 8, 2023, Defendant filed a brief requesting dismissal based on forum non conveniens. On July 14, 2023, the Court issued a minute order adopting a modified tentative ruling which stayed the case. The parties stipulated that Defendant would not transfer, sell, or encumber his property in Temple City or the three properties in China which he listed in his reply brief filed on July 6, 2023. The parties also stipulated that defense counsel would be authorized to accept service of a case that may be filed in Hong Kong, China, or Singapore that is related to this case. An order to show cause re: dismissal was scheduled for July 15, 2024.

On May 14, 2024, Defendant filed another motion to dismiss. On July 15, 2024, the parties informed the court that no settlement had been reached. Defendant was ordered to reserve a hearing date for this motion through the online Court Reservation System.

The motion to dismiss is unopposed.

II.     DISCUSSION

 “A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes…(2) To stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10(a)(2).)  “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(a).)

Once again, Defendant argues that China is a suitable alternative forum and that this action should be dismissed pursuant the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Defendant submits “new evidence” which “conclusively establishes” that the courts in China provide an adequate alternative forum because a court order shows that a civil suit filed on July 7, 2021, in the Intermediate People’s Court of Sanya City, Hainan Province, China, concerned the same dispute arising from an “Equity Interests Transfer Agreement”. (Motion, Ex. B.) Defendant claims that he was represented in this case and defended through two litigation agents, Xinmin Hong and Shimiao Zhang. (Ex. B, p. 2.) An order issued on November 10, 2023, shows that the Chinese court terminated the case pertaining to this dispute so that a criminal investigation against Defendant could proceed first. (Ex. B, p. 4.) A certified translation of the order states that “it does not violate legal provisions to apply to this court to withdraw the prosecution of this case on the grounds of asserting rights including but not limited to filing a civil lawsuit again.” (Ibid.) Based on this language, Defendant argues, Plaintiff has an adequate alternate forum in which to pursue his claims against Defendant.

The Court does not disagree that China is a more suitable alternative forum, for the reasons stated in its previous minute order issued over a year ago on July 14, 2023. Namely, there are no issues with the statute of limitations and the private and public interests do not favor retaining the action for trial in California because it concerns real property in China, would involve applying Chinese law and interpreting documents in Chinese (and that were issued by the Chinese government), and all the key witnesses currently reside in China and Singapore. (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.) Because Plaintiff did not oppose this motion or argue that he is prohibited from filing a civil suit against Defendant in China, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. 

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 19th day of August, 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.