This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/16/2019 at 22:42:21 (UTC).

LIU LAW, INC., VS NEXST CALIFORNIA, INC, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 04/04/2018 LIU LAW, INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against NEXST CALIFORNIA, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******5185

  • Filing Date:

    04/04/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

LIU LAW INC.

THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE L. YOUNG A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

LIU LONG Z.

YOUNG GEORGE L.

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

LIANG FRANCIS

DIVINITY INTERNATIONAL INC.

NEW GOLDEN TRADING INC.

LEUNG YAN AKA VICTOR LEUNG

NEXST CALIFORNIA INC

YOUNG GEORGE L.

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

LIANG FRANCIS

LIU LAW INC.

LEUNG YAN AKA VICTOR LEUNG

LIU LONG Z.

Not Classified By Court

CASIO SHYN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Cross Plaintiff and Plaintiff Attorneys

LIU LONG Z

YOUNG GEORGE LEUNG-CHU

SHYN CASIO

Cross Defendant Attorney

HARTZLER MARK B.

 

Court Documents

Answer

8/31/2018: Answer

Summons - Summons on Cross Complaint

10/25/2018: Summons - Summons on Cross Complaint

Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing - Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing

10/29/2018: Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing - Notice of Rejection - Fax Filing

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

11/6/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

11/15/2018: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure t...)

2/21/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure t...)

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

3/5/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information - Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Notice of Reclassification - Notice of Reclassification

3/18/2019: Notice of Reclassification - Notice of Reclassification

Civil Case Cover Sheet

4/4/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

4/4/2018: Complaint

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

7/10/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

7/10/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

7/10/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

7/24/2018: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

7/24/2018: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

7/9/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

4/4/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

31 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/18/2019
  • DocketAddress for Long Z Liu (Attorney) updated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/17/2019
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by: Long Z Liu (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • DocketNotice of Reclassification; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment/Vacate Hearings; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. James E. Blancarte; Reason: Reclassification

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2019
  • DocketTrial Setting Conference scheduled for 06/04/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/18/2019

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2019
  • DocketNotice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by: Yan Leung (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • DocketTrial Setting Conference scheduled for 06/04/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • DocketNotice of Trial Setting Conference and Attached Orders Thereon; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/21/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure t...)

    Read MoreRead Less
107 More Docket Entries
  • 07/09/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Liu Law, INC., (Plaintiff); As to: Francis Liang (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 07/09/2018; Service Cost: 60.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Liu Law, INC., (Plaintiff); As to: Nexst California, INC (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 05/31/2018; Service Cost: 60.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Liu Law, INC., (Plaintiff); As to: New Golden Trading, INC., (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 05/31/2018; Service Cost: 60.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Liu Law, INC., (Plaintiff); As to: Nexst California, INC (Defendant); New Golden Trading, INC., (Defendant); Divinity International INC., (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Liu Law, INC., (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 77 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/02/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 04/07/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 77

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC05185    Hearing Date: June 1, 2021    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Liu Law, Inc.

RESP. PARTY: Defendants

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

(CCP § 437c)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Liu Law, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is CONTINUED TO JUNE 30, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendants must file and serve, if they haven’t done so already, a copy of their separate statement.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 75/80 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on May 12, 2021 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 26, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On April 4, 2018, Plaintiff Liu Law, Inc., (“Liu Law”) filed an action alleging breach of contract, fraud, and conversion causes of action against Defendants Nexst California, Inc. (“Nexst”), New Golden Trading, Inc. (“New Golden”), Divinity International, Inc. (“Divinity”), Yan Leung a.k.a. Victor Leung (“Victor”), and Francis Liang (“Francis”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

Defendants Leung and Liang filed an Answer and a Cross-Complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and for declaratory relief against Plaintiff Liu Law and Long Z. Liu on August 31, 2018.

Plaintiff Liu Law and Long Z. Liu filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint and a Cross-Complaint for equitable indemnity, third party tort of another, and apportionment of responsibility against Cross-Defendants George L. Young and The Law of Offices of George L. Young on October 25, 2018. An Answer to the second Cross-Complaint was filed on January 25, 2019.

Pursuant to the filing parties’ request, the Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff Liu Law and Long Z. Liu on August 31, 2018 was dismissed without prejudice on February 1, 2019. (2/1/19 Request for Dismissal.)

On January 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (the “Motion”). An opposition was filed on May 12. Plaintiff did not file a reply brief.

II. Legal Standard

A party seeking summary judgment has the burden of producing evidentiary facts sufficient to entitle him/her to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153.) The moving party must make an affirmative showing that he/she is entitled to judgment irrespective of whether or not the opposing party files an opposition. (Villa v. McFerren (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 733.)

When a Defendant or Cross-Defendant seeks summary judgment, he/she must show either (1) that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established; or (2) that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) When a Plaintiff or Cross-Complainant seeks summary judgment, he/she must produce admissible evidence on each element of each cause of action on which judgment is sought. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) The moving party’s “affidavits must cite evidentiary facts, not legal conclusions or ‘ultimate’ facts” and be strictly construed. (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519; Hayman v. Block (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 629, 639.)

The opposing party on a motion for summary judgment is under no evidentiary burden to produce rebuttal evidence until the moving party meets his or her initial movant’s burden. (Binder v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832.) Once the initial movant’s burden is met, then the burden shifts to the opposing party to show, with admissible evidence, that there is a triable issue requiring the weighing procedures of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p).) The opposing party may not simply rely on his/her allegations to show a triable issue but must present evidentiary facts that are substantial in nature and rise beyond mere speculation. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151.) As to any alternative request for summary adjudication of issues, such alternative relief must be clearly set forth in the Notice of Motion and the general burden-shifting rules apply but the issues upon which summary adjudication may be sought are limited by statute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (f)(1).)

III. Discussion

Plaintiff’s Motion only seeks adjudication as to the first cause of action for breach of contract. (Mot., p. 2.)

Before considering the merits of the Motion, the Court notes that Defendants’ opposition appears to be incomplete. Specifically, both the caption of the opposition brief and the brief itself reference a separate statement but none was filed. In addition, the opposition states that Defendant Leung disputes the billing record (Oppo., p. 3) but does not specifically identify which entries are opposed and on what basis. Because Defendants’ separate statement was not filed, it is unclear whether individual entries are identified there that sufficiently dispute the damages sought by Plaintiff.

Finally, the proof of service included with Defendants’ opposition is incomplete, as it does not set forth the date on which the opposition was served.

In the interest of resolving this on the merits, and to allow Defendants an opportunity to remedy these errors and fully present their opposition, Plaintiff’s Motion is CONTINUED.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Liu Law, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is CONTINUED TO JUNE 30, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Defendants must file and serve, if they haven’t done so already, a copy of their separate statement.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Nexst California, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HARTZLER, MARK B