This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 05/15/2021 at 00:40:52 (UTC).

LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ; SARA DE LA CRUZ VS CAI LIU; DIANE CHANG; LONG DRAGON REALTY GROUP, INC.

Case Summary

On 11/14/2019 LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ SARA DE LA CRUZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against CAI LIU DIANE CHANG LONG DRAGON REALTY GROUP, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0587

  • Filing Date:

    11/14/2019

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

DE LA CRUZ LUCIANO

DE LA CRUZ SARA

Defendants

LIU CAI

CHANG DIANE

LONG DRAGON REALTY GROUP INC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BAYLEY GUY RICHARD

Defendant Attorney

MARTIN PETER A.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

2/16/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 02/16/2021

2/16/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 02/16/2021

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT LONG DRAGON REALTY GROUP, INC.'S MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING REQUESTS FOR ADMISIONS ADMITTED

2/17/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DEFENDANT LONG DRAGON REALTY GROUP, INC.'S MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING REQUESTS FOR ADMISIONS ADMITTED

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition from Plaintiff to Defendants' Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admissions Admitted Against Plaintiffs Luciano De La Cruz and Sara De La Cruz for

3/12/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Non-Opposition from Plaintiff to Defendants' Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admissions Admitted Against Plaintiffs Luciano De La Cruz and Sara De La Cruz for

Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT LONG DRAGON REALTY GROUP, INC. FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ AND SARA DE LA CRUZ TO R

3/12/2021: Motion to Compel (name extension) - Motion to Compel NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF DEFENDANT LONG DRAGON REALTY GROUP, INC. FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFFS LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ AND SARA DE LA CRUZ TO R

Judgment - Judgment [Proposed] Amended Judgment of Dismissal without Leave to Amend

4/22/2021: Judgment - Judgment [Proposed] Amended Judgment of Dismissal without Leave to Amend

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Plaintiffs' Non-Opposition to Demurrer

9/17/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Plaintiffs' Non-Opposition to Demurrer

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration re Request for Relief under CCP 473 re: non filing of Opposition

9/22/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration re Request for Relief under CCP 473 re: non filing of Opposition

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

9/24/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

9/24/2020: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order for Leave to File First Amended Complaint

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

7/15/2020: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike Fee)

6/19/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike Fee)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

7/8/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike) of 07/08/2020

7/8/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike) of 07/08/2020

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

4/22/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of peter a. martin in support of request for automatic extension

3/13/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration of peter a. martin in support of request for automatic extension

Complaint - Complaint

11/14/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

11/14/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

12 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/22/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Judgment [Proposed] Amended Judgment of Dismissal without Leave to Amend: Status Date changed from 03/11/2021 to 04/22/2021; As To Parties changed from LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ (Plaintiff) to LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ, et al. on 11/14/2019, entered Order for Dismissal with prejudice as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2021
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/22/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/17/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 04/22/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2021
  • DocketPursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted scheduled for 02/16/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party on 03/22/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2021
  • DocketPursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Document Demand scheduled for 04/22/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party on 03/22/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted scheduled for 03/22/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 03/22/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ, et al. on 11/14/2019, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ and Sara De La Cruz as to Diane Chang and Long Dragon Realty Group Inc

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2021
  • DocketAddress for Peter A. Martin (Attorney) null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and Document Demand scheduled for 04/22/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
22 More Docket Entries
  • 04/22/2020
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by: Diane Chang (Defendant); Long Dragon Realty Group Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2020
  • DocketDeclaration of peter a. martin in support of request for automatic extension; Filed by: Long Dragon Realty Group Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/17/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/18/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ (Plaintiff); Sara De La Cruz (Plaintiff); As to: Cai Liu (Defendant); Diane Chang (Defendant); Long Dragon Realty Group Inc (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ (Plaintiff); Sara De La Cruz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: LUCIANO DE LA CRUZ (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC10587    Hearing Date: March 22, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:    Mon., March 22, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME De La Cruz, et al. v. Liu, et al. COMPL. FILED: 11-14-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC10587 DISC. C/O: 04-14-21

NOTICE:   OK DISC. MOT/ C/O:    04-28-21

TRIAL DATE: 05-13-21

PROCEEDINGS    MOTION FOR ORDER DEEMING REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants Long Dragon Realty Group and Diane Chang

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS  

(CCP § 2033.280)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Long Dragon Realty Group and Diane Chang’s Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED. Defendants’ request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $285.00 to be paid to Defendants Chang and Long Dragon’s counsel within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

SERVICE

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

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

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of March 17, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 17, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On November 14, 2019, Plaintiffs Luciano De La Cruz (“Luciano”) and Sara De La Cruz (“Sara”) filed an action for breach of contract and fraud against Defendants Cai Liu (“Liu”), Diane Chang (“Chang”), and Long Dragon Realty Group, Inc. (“Long Dragon”).

Defendants Chang and Long Dragon filed a demurrer to the complaint on April 22, 2020, which was scheduled to be heard on September 24, 2020. At the hearing on the demurrer, the Court found that the parties submitted a stipulation to permit Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint within 20 calendar days of September 22, 2020. (9/24/20 Minute Order.) The Court granted the stipulation and placed the demurrer off calendar as moot. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, no defendant has filed an answer, and no default has been entered against any Defendant.

On December 21, 2020, Defendants Long Dragon and Chang filed the instant Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admission Admitted against both Plaintiffs (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

  1. Legal Standard & Discussion

A. Requests for Admission

 

A party must respond to requests for admissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)  “If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a) [that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).) “The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).)  A motion dealing with the failure to respond, rather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to meet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer v. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4 [disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox v. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which a motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

Here, Defendants Chang and Long Dragon served a single set of Requests for Admission, Set One, directed at both Plaintiffs. (Mot., Martin Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) The discovery was served on Plaintiffs’ counsel on August 25, 2020 via email. (Id.) Defendants’ counsel states that Plaintiffs’ counsel did not request, and Defendants did not grant, an extension to respond to the discovery. (Id.) No responses were provided. (Mot., pp. 3:26-4:1, Martin Decl., ¶ 2-3.) Defendants were not required to meet and confer with Plaintiffs prior to filing this Motion. Thus, Defendants Long Dragon and Chang are entitled to an order deeming the Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted against each Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280.)

B. Request for Sanctions  

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a) provides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Furthermore, it is “mandatory that the Court impose a monetary sanction…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

The Court finds Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to Defendant Chang and Long Dragon’s Requests for Admission, Set One, a misuse of the discovery process. In addition, the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction on Plaintiffs for their failure to respond to the Requests for Admission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

Defendant Chang and Long Dragon’s counsel requests a total of $1,330.00 in sanctions based on 7 hours of attorney time billed at $190.00 per hour. (Mot., Martin Decl., ¶ 3.) However, the amount sought is excessive given the simplicity of this Motion and the lack of opposition and reply. The Court finds $285.00, based on 1.5 hours of attorney time, to be reasonable.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Long Dragon Realty Group and Diane Chang’s Motion for Order Deeming Requests for Admission Admitted is GRANTED. Defendants’ request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $285.00 to be paid to Defendants Chang and Long Dragon’s counsel within thirty (30) days of service of this order.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC10587    Hearing Date: September 24, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:    Thu., September 24, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: De La Cruz v. De La Cruz COMPL. FILED: 11-14-19

CASE NUMBER:     19STLC10587 DISC. C/O:    04-13-21

NOTICE:   OK DISC. MOT. C/O:     04-28-21

TRIAL DATE: 05-13-21

PROCEEDINGS:     DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:   Defendants Long Dragon Realty Group, Inc. and Diane Chang

RESP. PARTY: None

DEMURRER

(CCP § 430.41, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Long Dragon Realty Group, Inc. and Diane Chang’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is SUSTAINED. Plaintiffs are GRANTED 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT.

SERVICE

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

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

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September 22, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of September 22, 2020 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On November 14, 2019, Plaintiffs Luciano De La Cruz and Sara De La Cruz (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an action for breach of contract and fraud against Defendants Cai Liu (“Liu”), Diane Chang (“Chang”), and Long Dragon Realty Group, Inc. (“Long Dragon”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

On March 13, 2020, Defendants Chang and Long Dragon’s counsel filed a Declaration in Support of Request for Automatic 30-day extension pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a)(2). Defendants Chang and Long Dragon thereafter filed the instant Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (the “Demurrer”) on April 22, 2020.

To date, no opposition has been filed.

 

II. Legal Standard

 

“The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its

case [citation], and a defect in a pleading that otherwise properly notifies a party cannot be said to

affect substantial rights.” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)

“A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in a complaint.” (Ivanoff v. Bank of

America, N.A. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 719, 725.) The Court looks to whether “the complaint alleges

facts sufficient to state a cause of action or discloses a complete defense.” (Id.) The Court does not

“read passages from a complaint in isolation; in reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we read the

complaint ‘as a whole and its parts in their context.’ [Citation.]” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 804.) The Court “assume[s] the truth of the properly pleaded

factual allegations, facts that reasonably can be inferred from those expressly pleaded and matters of

which judicial notice has been taken.” (Harris, supra, 56 Cal.4th p. 240.) “The court does not,

however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law. [Citation.]” (Durell v.

Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.)

A general demurrer may be brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e) if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted or under section 430.10, subdivision (a), where the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleading. Special demurrers are not allowed in limited jurisdiction courts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c).)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)  The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Id.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 requires that “[b]efore filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) The parties are to meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(2).) Thereafter, the demurring party shall file and serve a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)

 

III. Discussion

A. Meet and Confer Requirements

As an initial matter, the Court notes that the meet and confer declaration submitted in support of Defendant Chang and Long Dragon’s Demurrer is insufficient. As noted above, the demurring party is required to meet and confer in person or by telephone. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).) (Italics added.) Defendant Chang and Long Dragon’s counsel states he sent a two-page letter via fax and regular mail to Plaintiffs’ counsel on March 6, 2020 and requested a response, but none was ever provided. (Dem., Martin Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendants’ counsel did not make any further efforts to contact Plaintiffs’ counsel via telephone once the letter was sent in early March. Although the Court finds Defendants’ counsel’s meet and confer efforts insufficient, this determination is not grounds to overrule a demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., 430.41, subd. (a)(4).) In addition, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court exercises its discretion to issue the following ruling on the merits.

B. Second Cause of Action – Fraud

Defendants Chang and Long Dragon demur to the second cause of action for fraud on the basis that it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute an action against them. (Notice of Dem., p. 3:2-8.)

“Fraud has five elements: a misrepresentation; the knowledge the misrepresentation is false; the intent to induce another’s reliance on the misrepresentation; justifiable reliance; and damages.” (Cohen v. Kabbalah Centre Internat., Inc. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 13, 20.) To allege a claim for negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must allege “(1) the misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact, (2) without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true, (3) with intent to induce another’s reliance on the fact misrepresented, (4) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation, and (5) resulting damage.” (Thrifty Payless, Inc. v. The Americana at Brand, LLC (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1230, 1239.) A cause of action for fraud must be alleged with specificity such that Plaintiff pleads facts that “show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.) In addition, “[t]he requirement of specificity in a fraud action against a corporation requires the plaintiff to allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.” (Tarmann v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.)

Plaintiffs’ action arises from a residential lease agreement for 1146 Cortez Rd., Arcadia, CA 91007 (the “Property”) entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendant Liu. (Compl., Exh. A.) They allege that on August 6, 2018, Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that both the main house and the converted garage on the Property were legal and fit for habitation, that the converted garage was not actually permitted and had to be converted back to a garage per orders from city inspectors, that Defendants had no reasonable grounds for believing the representations regarding the habitability of the converted garage were true, that Plaintiffs acted in justifiable reliance upon Defendants’ representations, and that Plaintiffs would not have rented the property or would not have agreed to the rental amount in the rental agreement. (Compl., pp. 4-5.)

However, these allegations are insufficient. Plaintiffs fail to allege who made the representation (i.e., Defendant Liu, or Defendant Chang as an Agent of corporate Defendant Long Dragon), how the allegations were made (i.e., verbally or in writing), and to whom the representations were made (i.e., to one or both Plaintiffs). (See Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)

Thus, Defendants Chang and Long Dragon’s Demurrer as to the second cause of action for fraud is SUSTAINED. Plaintiffs are GRANTED 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT.

 

IV. Conclusion & Order

 

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Long Dragon Realty Group, Inc. and Diane Chang’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is SUSTAINED. Plaintiffs are GRANTED 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT.

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where LONG DRAGON REALTY GROUP INC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BAYLEY GUY RICHARD