This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/01/2019 at 20:09:49 (UTC).

CALIFORNIA ENERGY INVESTMENT FUND 1 VS. HU & ASSOCIATES, ET

Case Summary

On 08/01/2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY INVESTMENT FUND 1 filed a Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation lawsuit against HU ASSOCIATES, ET. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5346

  • Filing Date:

    08/01/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

CALIFORNIA ENERGY INVESTMENT FUND 1 LP

WESTERN REGIONAL CENTER INC. A CA. CORP

WRC INVESTMENT FUND 1 LLC A CA. LTD LIA

WRC INVESTMENT FUND 1 LLC

WESTERN REGIONAL CENTER INC.

Defendants

HU & ASSOCIATES PC A NEW YORK PROF.CORP

HU JOHN DEYONG AN INDIVIDUAL

HU & ASSOCIATES LLC A CALIF LTD LIABILI

HU & ASSOCIATES A NEVADA CORPORATION

HU & ASSOCIATES LLC

HU & ASSOCIATES PC

HU JOHN

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

JAIME L. WILSON

MASSON RICHARD EDWIN

 

Court Documents

Unknown

8/1/2016: Unknown

Request for Judicial Notice

9/30/2016: Request for Judicial Notice

Unknown

9/30/2016: Unknown

Unknown

10/7/2016: Unknown

Minute Order

10/17/2016: Minute Order

Unknown

10/18/2016: Unknown

Unknown

11/28/2016: Unknown

Unknown

12/2/2016: Unknown

Case Management Statement

12/12/2016: Case Management Statement

Minute Order

12/29/2016: Minute Order

Unknown

1/27/2017: Unknown

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

2/9/2017: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Unknown

7/26/2017: Unknown

Unknown

11/8/2017: Unknown

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

3/21/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Declaration

3/21/2019: Declaration

Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

3/21/2019: Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel

Unknown

4/9/2019: Unknown

37 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/26/2019
  • Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Hu & Associates, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2019
  • Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil; Filed by Hu & Associates, LLC (Defendant); John Hu (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2019
  • Appeal - Remittitur - Appeal Dismissed (B281142); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
50 More Docket Entries
  • 09/30/2016
  • Declaration; Filed by California Energy Investment Fund 1, LP (Plaintiff); Western Regional Center, Inc. (Plaintiff); WRC Investment Fund 1, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2016
  • Opposition; Filed by California Energy Investment Fund 1, LP (Plaintiff); Western Regional Center, Inc. (Plaintiff); WRC Investment Fund 1, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/30/2016
  • Notice of Lodging; Filed by California Energy Investment Fund 1, LP (Plaintiff); Western Regional Center, Inc. (Plaintiff); WRC Investment Fund 1, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/12/2016
  • Notice of Hearing on Demurrer; Filed by Hu & Associates, a Nevada corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2016
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by California Energy Investment Fund 1, LP (Plaintiff); Western Regional Center, Inc. (Plaintiff); WRC Investment Fund 1, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2016
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2016
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2016
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/01/2016
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by California Energy Investment Fund 1, LP (Plaintiff); Western Regional Center, Inc. (Plaintiff); WRC Investment Fund 1, LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC065346    Hearing Date: January 24, 2020    Dept: A

California Energy Investment Fund 1 v Hu & Assoc.

Motion for Summary Adjudication

Calendar:

09

Case No.:

EC065346

Hearing Date:

January 24, 2020

Action Filed:

August 01, 2016

Trial Date:

February 24, 2020

MP:

Plaintiffs California Energy Investment Fund 1, LP; Western Regional Center, Inc.; WRC Investment Fund 1, LLC

RP:

Defendants Hu & Associates; John D. Hu

ALLEGATIONS:

Plaintiffs California Energy Investment Fund 1, LP, Western Regional Center, Inc., and WRC Investment Fund 1, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against Defendants Hu & Associates, PC, Hu & Associates, LLC, Hu & Associates, and John Deyong Hu (“Defendants”), alleging that Defendants knowingly and repeatedly published malicious, false, defamatory statements about Plaintiffs in an effort to lure away current and future potential investors for their own gain.

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on August 01, 2016, and the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on January 27, 2017, alleging nine causes of action sounding in (1) Libel Per Se, (2) Libel, (3) Libel Per Se, (4) Libel, (5) Libel Per Se, (6) Libel, (7) Defamation, (8) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, and (9) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relationship.

PRESENTATION:

Plaintiffs filed this motion for summary adjudication on November 08, 2019. Defendants opposed the motion on January 09, 2020.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiffs move for summary adjudication on the First, Third, and Fifth Causes of Action.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – A party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(a). To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the evidence submitted must show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(c). In other words, the opposing party cannot present contrary admissible evidence to raise a triable factual dispute.

“For purposes of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication: (1) A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on that cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant or cross-defendant may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(1).

When ruling on a summary judgment motion, the trial court must consider all inferences from the evidence, even those contradicted by the moving party’s evidence. The motion cannot succeed unless the evidence leaves no room for conflicting inferences as to material facts; the court has no power to weigh one inference against another or against other evidence. Murillo v. Rite Stuff Foods, Inc. (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 833, 841. In determining whether the facts give rise to a triable issue of material fact, “‘[a]ll doubts as to whether any material, triable, issues of fact exist are to be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment . . . .’” Gold v. Weissman (2004) 114 Cal. App. 4th 1195, 1198–99, as modified on denial of reh’g (Feb. 10, 2004). “In other words, the facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences there from must be accepted as true.” Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 171, 179.

With a summary judgment motion, a three-step analysis is required of the trial court. AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker Nat’l Bank (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d 1061, 1064–65. First, the trial court must identify the issues framed by the pleadings since it is these allegations to which the motion must respond by establishing a complete defense or otherwise showing there is no factual basis for relief on any theory reasonably contemplated by the opponent’s pleading. Id. Secondly, the court must determine whether the moving party’s showing has established facts which negate the opponent’s claim and justify a judgment in movant’s favor. Id. When a summary judgment motion prima facie justifies a judgment, the third and final step is to determine whether the opposition demonstrates the existence of a triable, material factual issue. Id. On a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion that each element of the cause of action in question has been proved, and that there is no defense thereto. Code of Civ. Proc. §437c(o)(1); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850.

---

First, Third, and Fifth Causes of Action (Libel Per Se) – The elements of libel per se are fourfold: (1) the writing is false; (2) the writing is unprivileged; (3) the writing is published; and (4) the writing exposes a person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes a person to be shunned or avoided, or which had a tendency to injure a person in his occupation. Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Assn. (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 1456, 1470-71.

Plaintiff has established its prima facie right to relief by establishing that (1) the relevant statements were false, (Decl. of Masson, Ex. A, 111:19-112:10); (2) the statements were unprivileged, as Defendant has not pled nor proved conditional privilege (See Answer; Opposition; and Fairfield v. Hagan (1967) 248 Cal. App. 2d 194, 204 [“But the burden is on the defendant to both plead and prove conditional privilege.”]); (3) the writings were published, (Separate Statement Nos. 09, 13, 43, 45, 62); and (4) the defamatory meaning of the statements are clear on their face, making injury presumed. See Clark v. McClurg (1932) 215 Cal. 279, 284; Hawran v. Hixson (2012) 209 Cal. App. 4th 256, 290; Burdette v. Carrier Corp. (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 1668, 1693; Wayte v. Rollins Int'l (1985) 169 Cal. App. 3d 1, 16.

In opposition, Defendant provides no evidence and no substantive legal citations addressing the issues raised by Plaintiff in its motion. Opposition, pp. 1-5. Defendant additionally provides no citation or substantive opposition to any of the evidence provided in Plaintiff’s separate statement. See Defendant’s Response to Separate Statement.

Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion.

---

RULING: GRANT

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiffs California Energy Investment Fund 1, LP; Western Regional Center, Inc.; WRC Investment Fund 1, LLC’s Motion for Summary Adjudication came on regularly for hearing on January 24, 2020, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS GRANTED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE