This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/06/2019 at 00:13:49 (UTC).

HUA LUO VS. RE/MAX ADVANCED REALTY, ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/15/2016 HUA LUO filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RE/MAX ADVANCED REALTY. 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:

    ****6142

  • Filing Date:

    12/15/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LUO HUA

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

RE/MAX LLC

WANG FANG

GONG CALVIN

CTC INVESTMENT PROPERTIES INC.

RE/MAX ADVANCED REALTY

TANG MANMAN

TANG SHIRLEY MANMAN

GONG PENG LIANG

GONG CALVIN AKA PENG LIANG GONG

RE/MAX LLC DBA RE/MAX ADVANCED REALTY

RE/MAX ADVANCED REALTY DBA RE/MAX ADVANCED REALTY

CTC INVESTMENT PROPERTIES INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DBA RE/MAX ADVANCED REALTY

Defendants and Cross Defendants

GONG CALVIN

RE/MAX ADVANCED REALTY

TANG MANMAN

TANG SHIRLEY MANMAN

Not Classified By Court

HUA LUO PLAINTIFF

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

KERMANI LAW FIRM

FIRM KERMANI LAW

KERMANI SAMIRA

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

SPILE LEFF & GOOR LLP

RITCHIE KLINKERT & GUTIERREZ

LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT SIU APC

WAGENSELLER LAW FIRM

LAW OFFICES OF P. CHENG & ASSOCIATES

DUKE DAVID WILLIAM

CHENG PAUL PO REN

KLINKERT JAMES E.

GUTIERREZ PAUL

 

Court Documents

Notice Of Rejection - Request For Dismissal

10/9/2019: Notice Of Rejection - Request For Dismissal

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER

9/27/2019: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER

9/27/2019: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER

Objection - OBJECTION TO AND REQUEST TO STRIKE

7/30/2019: Objection - OBJECTION TO AND REQUEST TO STRIKE

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

7/25/2019: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10)

Request for Judicial Notice

7/25/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR DEFENDANT FANG WANG'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

7/18/2019: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME TO HEAR DEFENDANT FANG WANG'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Proof of Service by Mail

7/10/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT -FIRST

6/20/2019: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT -FIRST

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

12/22/2016: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

12/22/2016: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Notice - Civil Deposit

1/13/2017: Notice - Civil Deposit

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

5/18/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

6/20/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

7/27/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Summons

7/27/2017: Summons

Substitution of Attorney

9/7/2017: Substitution of Attorney

Declaration - Declaration of Attorney Samira Kermani in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Protective Order Limiting Discovery, Exhibits Thereto

1/7/2019: Declaration - Declaration of Attorney Samira Kermani in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Protective Order Limiting Discovery, Exhibits Thereto

280 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/21/2020
  • Hearing09/21/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • Hearing09/21/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (OF REBECCA GARDNER IN SUPPORT OF CROSS- COMPLAINANT'S PROPOSED ORDER); Filed by Fang Wang (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6) (/Calvin Gong) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2019
  • DocketOther - (Court's Tentative Ruling); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2019
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore; Filed by Fang Wang (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2019
  • DocketNotice (OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING); Filed by Fang Wang (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Bifurcate (Cross Complaint) - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/12/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (CCP 877.6) (/Calvin Gong) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
333 More Docket Entries
  • 12/27/2016
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Hua Luo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Hua Luo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Hua Luo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Hua Luo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/22/2016
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Hua Luo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2016
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Hua Luo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2016
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Hua Luo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2016
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Hua Luo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2016
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Hua Luo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC066142    Hearing Date: October 16, 2020    Dept: A

The Superior Court is open under “Here for You | Safe for You” Conditions and Orders

Counsel are urged to use remote appearance technology LACourtConnect

If it is indispensable for counsel to be present in court, face masks (without a valve) are mandated (unless a court orders otherwise) and social distancing rules are in force.

Dept. A Burbank protocol for LACourtConnect Appearances.

Video Appearances: Since these are the functional equivalent of a personal appearance in court, no special protocols are in place at this time.

Audio Only Appearances.

  1. Argument is limited to three minutes, unless the court grants a request for additional time.

  2. The reading of argument is feckless and nugatory.

  3. State your name at the beginning of all statements.

  4. Do not speak directly to other counsel without permission of court.

  5. Do not interrupt or attempt to speak over another speaker.

  6. Do not announce your presence until called by your name or case name.

  7. Take a deep breath frequently so that the court may interrupt your presentation, if necessary. (The system does not default to the court unless you are placed on mute by the court or go silent or mute on you own.)

  8. Maintain silence in your surroundings – no keyboarding, dogs barking, children crying, etc.

Luo v Re-Max

Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement

Calendar:

09

Case No.:

EC066142

Hearing Date:

October 16, 2020

Action Filed:

December 15, 2016

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Defendant/Cross-Defendant Shirley Manman Tang

RP:

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Fang Wang

ALLEGATIONS:

The instant action arises from Plaintiff Hua Luo (“Plaintiff”) hiring Defendants CTC Investment Properties, Inc. (“CTC”) and Calvin Gong (“Gong”), to purchase real property for her for investment purposes. Defendants induced Plaintiff to make the purchase of real property which had tenants by making false statements and by concealing information from her about the conditions and legality of the tenancies. Defendant Shirley Manman Tang (“Tang”) was the real estate agent representing the seller, Defendant Fang Wang (“Wang”), in the transaction and allegedly failed to inform Plaintiff that a portion of construction was not permitted such that Plaintiff could not lease out that part of the property. CTC d/b/a Re/Max Advanced Realty (“Re/Max”) and Re/Max were allegedly both Gong and Tang’s principals and employers.

Subsequently, the City of Highland (“Highland”) conducted an inspection of the property and ordered Plaintiff to evict all tenants because the property was illegally occupied and illegally converted.

The second amended complaint (“SAC”), filed July 27, 2017, alleges nine causes of action for: (1) Fraud in the Inducement; (2) Constructive Fraud; (3) Fraud (Concealment); (4) Fraud (Intentional Misrepresentation); (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (6) Breach of Duty to be Honest and Truthful (Civ. Code, §§1102.7 & 2079); (7) Negligence; (8) Negligent Misrepresentation; and (9) Breach of Contract.

On March 28, 2017, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Wang filed a Cross-Complaint (“XC”), thereafter field a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FXC”) on June 20, 2019, and filed the operative Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SXC”) on November 05, 2019, against Tang, Gong, and Re/Max, alleging eight causes of action for: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Negligence; (4) Negligent Misrepresentation; (5) Fraud – Intentional Misrepresentation; (6) Fraud – Concealment; (7) Equitable Indemnity; and (8) Implied Contractual Indemnity. Wang alleges that she purchased property with the help of Tang, in hopes of finding tenants. Wang alleges that Tang advised her that the property was easily rentable, but discovered that the property included issues with water, mold, and other construction damages and that obtaining a tenant was difficult. Wang later decided to sell the property and asked Tang to represent her as the listing agent. Wang alleges that she is only proficient in Mandarin and not English and thus Tang filled out the required disclosures (Transfer Disclosure Form and Seller Property Questionnaire) on Wang’s behalf, but Tang failed to address the deficiencies found on the property. Wang alleges that she was then sued by Plaintiff along with other defendants Tang, Calvin Gong, Re/Max, and CTC.

PRESENTATION:

Tang filed the motion on July 28, 2020, Wang filed an opposition on August 17, 2020, and Tang filed a reply on August 21, 2020.

On August 24, 2020, the Court continued the instant matter to October 16, 2020. Counsel for Cross-Defendant Tang was telephonically notified of the Court's order and directed to give notice.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Tang moves for a determination of the good faith of the settlement between Plaintiff Hua Luo and Defendant Shirley Manman Tang.

DISCUSSION:

 

Standard of Review – Good Faith Determination – Under Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6, “[a]ny party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors . . . shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasor or co-obligors.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a).) The statute aims at two competing policies: “(1) The equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault and (2) the encouragement of settlements.” (Erreca’s v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal. App. 4th 1475, 1487.) A determination under § 877.6(a) by the court “shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor . . . for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.” (Id. at subd. (c).) “The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.” (Id. at subd. (d).) To demonstrate lack of good faith, the opposing party must “demonstrate, if he can, that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to [certain enumerated factors] as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.” (Nutrition Now, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal. App. 4th 209, 213.) To make this determination, the Court must rely “on the basis of experience rather than speculation, [and] a court may enlist the guidance of the judge’s personal experience and of experts in the field.” (Cahill v. San Diego gas & Elec. Co. (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 939, 959.)

In determining whether a settlement is so far out of the ballpark that it is inconsistent with the statute, the factors to consider include a “rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability, the amount paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he were found liable after a trial. Other relevant considerations include the financial condition and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as well as the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of nonsettling defendants. Finally, practical considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of information available at the time of settlement.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Associates (1985) 38 Cal. 3d 488, 499.) As a starting point, “when no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is sufficient.” (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior Court (1987) 192 Cal. App. 3d 1251, 1261.) It is only when “the good faith nature of a settlement is disputed [that] it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors.” (Ibid.)

Under Tech-Bilt, the Court must analyze a motion for the determination of a good faith settlement on the basis of: (1) the amount paid in settlement, (2) the settlement amount versus trial amount, (3) the total recovery versus proportional liability, (4) financial conditions of the parties, (5) insurance policy limits of the settling party, (6) collusion/fraud/tortious conduct between the settling parties, and (7) the allocation of the proceeds.

Merits – Tech-Bilt Factors – Wang disputes the good faith nature of the settlement between Plaintiff and Tang, and so the Court will consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt Factors.

Amount Paid – As to the first factor, Tang proposes to pay $100,000 to Plaintiff. Wang does not directly address Tang's proposed settlement payment outside of its relation to her liability and so the instant factor does not weigh in favor or against the motion.

Settlement Amount Versus Trial Amount – As to the second factor, Wang argues that Plaintiff sought $400,000 in damages, plus fees, penalties, punitive damages, and interest, rather than the $140,000 claimed by Tang. Wang contends that Tang failed to provide evidence supporting the contention that Plaintiff's total damages were only $140,000. In reply, Tang argues that the approximate value of the case was $145,000 according to "Defense experts". (Reply, 2:13.)

Tang fails to support her specific valuation with evidence. Nonetheless, as stated, supra, Wang bears the burden to the show "that the settlement is so far ‘out of the ballpark’ in relation to [certain enumerated factors] as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of the statute.” (Nutrition Now, supra, 105 Cal. App. 4th at p. 213.) The Court finds that Wang fails to sufficiently show that the proposed settlement figure of $100,000 is "out of the ballpark" relative to claims for $400,000 in damages, plus undefined fees, penalties, punitive damages, and interest. Accordingly, the instant factor in favor of granting the motion.

Total Recovery Versus Proportionate Liability – As to the third factor, Wang argues that Tang's settlement figure is not representative of her reasonable share of liability but provides no argument or evidence as to what Tang's proportional liability should be. Wang thus fails to sufficiently bear her burden to show that the proposed settlement figure is "out of the ballpark" relative to Tang's proportionate liability. Accordingly, the instant factor in favor of granting the motion.

Financial Condition/Insurance Policy Limits – Neither party substantively addresses the fourth or fifth factors, and so the two factors do not weigh in favor of or against the motion.

Collusion/Fraud/Tortious Conduct – Wang argues that Tang committed fraud in knowing about the non-permitted conditions at the Property and filling out the Transfer Disclosure Statement ("TDS") fraudulently. In reply, Tang argues Wang's cited deposition excerpt is misleading, as there are two parts of the TDS to be filled out by Agent and Seller, that Tang only filled out the Agent's Visual Inspection, and that Wang presented a section to be filled out by her, rather than Tang. The Court cannot locate the evidence cited by Wang in support of her fraud allegation, which references a generic "Gardner Dec., Exhibit 3" without any other accompanying identification. (Oppo., 4:6.) As the Court cannot make a determination on this factor without reviewing the evidence, the instant factor does not weigh in favor of or against the motion.

Allocation of Proceeds – As to the seventh factor, Wang asserts that Tang's failure to provide an evidentiary basis for the allocation of the settlement is grounds for a denial of the good faith of the settlement. In reply, Tang argues that the rest of the case has settled, and so the valuation of the case can be made at $185,000, and Tang proposes to pay more than half of that figure in settlement. The Court finds that Wang fails to bear her burden to show that the current allocation of settlement payments is "out of the ballpark" as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of CCP § 877.6(a). The instant factor thus weighs in favor of granting the motion.

Determination – On balance, the Court finds that the above factors weigh in favor of granting the instant motion. None of the factors weigh against the motion, and many, including the vital Total Recovery versus Proportional Liability factor, weigh in favor the motion. The Court will thus grant the instant motion.

---

RULING: below,

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

Defendant/Cross-Defendant Shirley Manman Tang's Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement came on regularly for hearing on October 16, 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

Case Number: EC066142    Hearing Date: January 10, 2020    Dept: A

Luo v Re/Max

Demurrers

Calendar:

14

Case No.:

EC066142

Hearing Date:

January 10, 2020

Action Filed:

December 15, 2016

Trial Date:

September 21, 2020

Demurrer

MP:

Cross-Defendant Re/Max Advanced Realty

RP:

Cross-Complainant Fang Wang

Demurrer

MP:

Cross-Defendant Calvin Gong

RP:

Cross-Complainant Fang Wang

ALLEGATIONS:

The instant action arises from Plaintiff Hua Luo (“Plaintiff”) hiring Defendants CTC Investment Properties, Inc. (“CTC”) and Calvin Gong (“Gong”), to purchase real property for her for investment purposes. Defendants induced Plaintiff to make the purchase of real property which had tenants by making false statements and by concealing information from her about the conditions and legality of the tenancies. Defendant Shirley Manman Tang (“Tang”) was the real estate agent representing the seller, Defendant Fang Wang (“Wang”), in the transaction and allegedly failed to inform Plaintiff that a portion of construction was not permitted such that Plaintiff could not lease out that part of the property. CTC d/b/a Re/Max Advanced Realty (“Re/Max”) and Re/Max were allegedly both Gong and Tang’s principals and employers.

Subsequently, the City of Highland (“Highland”) conducted an inspection of the property and ordered Plaintiff to evict all tenants because the property was illegally occupied and illegally converted.

The second amended complaint (“SAC”), filed July 27, 2017, alleges nine causes of action for: (1) Fraud in the Inducement; (2) Constructive Fraud; (3) Fraud (Concealment); (4) Fraud (Intentional Misrepresentation); (5) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (6) Breach of Duty to be Honest and Truthful (Civ. Code, §§1102.7 & 2079); (7) Negligence; (8) Negligent Misrepresentation; and (9) Breach of Contract.

On March 28, 2017, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Wang filed a Cross-Complaint (“XC”), thereafter field a First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FXC”) on June 20, 2019, and filed the operative Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SXC”) on November 05, 2019, against Tang, Gong, and Re/Max, alleging eight causes of action for: (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Negligence; (4) Negligent Misrepresentation; (5) Fraud – Intentional Misrepresentation; (6) Fraud – Concealment; (7) Equitable Indemnity; and (8) Implied Contractual Indemnity. Wang alleges that she purchased property with the help of Tang, in hopes of finding tenants. Wang alleges that Tang advised her that the property was easily rentable, but discovered that the property included issues with water, mold, and other construction damages and that obtaining a tenant was difficult. Wang later decided to sell the property and asked Tang to represent her as the listing agent. Wang alleges that she is only proficient in Mandarin and not English and thus Tang filled out the required disclosures (Transfer Disclosure Form and Seller Property Questionnaire) on Wang’s behalf, but Tang failed to address the deficiencies found on the property. Wang alleges that she was then sued by Plaintiff along with other defendants Tang, Calvin Gong, Re/Max, and CTC.

PRESENTATION:

Following the October 04, 2019, hearing on the FXC, the Court ordered that Gong’s demurrer be sustained as to all causes of action, with 30 days leave to amend, and that Re/Max’s demurrer be overruled and motion to strike denied. Re/Max thereafter was granted relief on its motion for determination of good faith settlement on November 15, 2019.

Re/Max filed the instant demurrer on December 06, 2019, Wang opposed the demurrer on December 27, 2019, and a reply was filed on January 03, 2020.

Gong filed his demurrer on December 05, 2019, opposition was filed on December 27, 2019, and a reply was submitted on January 03, 2020.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Re/Max demurs to the Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action sounding in indemnity.

Gong demurs to the entire SXC.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Demurrer – The grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters. Code Civ. Proc. §430.30,(a); Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal. 3d 311, 318. Concerning the legal sufficiency of a pleading, the sole issue on demurrer is whether the facts pleaded, if true, state a valid cause of action – i.e., if the complaint pleads facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 326, 339.

A general demurrer admits the truth of all factual, material allegations properly pled in the challenged pleading, regardless of possible difficulties of proof. Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318. Thus, no matter how unlikely or improbable, plaintiff’s allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 593, 604. Nevertheless, this rule does not apply to allegations expressing mere conclusions of law, or allegations contradicted by the exhibits to the complaint or by matters of which judicial notice may be taken. Vance v. Villa Park Mobilehome Estates (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 698, 709. A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. Blank, supra, 39 Cal. 3d at p. 318.

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §430.10(e) and (f), the party against whom a complaint has been filed may object by demurrer to the pleading on the grounds that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or that the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous and/or unintelligible. It is an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer if there is a reasonable probability that the defect can be cured by amendment. Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 1074, 1082, as modified (Dec. 23, 2003).

Meet and Confer – Prior to filing a demurrer, the demurring party is required to satisfy their meet and confer obligations pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §430.41, and demonstrate that they so satisfied their meet and confer obligation by submitting a declaration pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §430.41(a)(2) & (3).

The Court has reviewed the Declarations of Paul Gutierrez, and concludes that the telephonic meet and confer satisfies Cross-Defendants meet and confer obligations. Although Cross-Complainant contents that the meet and confer was made in bad faith, the Court concludes that further meet and confer efforts would be futile.

---

Re/Max Demurrer – Re/Max demurs to the Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action sounding in contribution in the SXC on the grounds that it is entitled to have the demurrer sustained pursuant to the Court having granting a determination of good faith settlement with Plaintiff on November 15, 2019. Cross-complainant requests that the Court overrule or stay the demurrer pending its appeal of the determination, arguing the instant demurrer is not ripe for adjudication. The Court disagrees with those arguments, and it is required to sustain the demurrer under the instant circumstances. Also, the court has received notice from the Court of Appeal that the writ application was denied.

Accordingly, the Court will sustain Re/Max’s demurrer to the Seventh and Eighth Causes of Action.

---

Gong Demurrer – In the Court’s October 04, 2019, Minute Order, the Court adopted its tentative ruling that Gong, as the owner of Re/Max could not be held personally liable for the acts of a Re/Max employee absent some direct basis of liability alleged against Gong, or though piercing the corporate veil. October 04, 2019, Minute Order, pp. 4. In conjunction with the demurrer, Gong moves for the court to take judicial notice of the California Department of Real Estate Online Broker Records for CTC Investment Properties, Inc. d/b/a Re/Max – indicating that Gong is the designated licensed officer of the company. As Cross-Complainant does not oppose the RJN, the Court takes notice of the document.

On demurrer, Gong argues that Cross-Complainant has failed to amend the SXC in order to either pierce the corporate veil, or establish Gong’s personal involvement in the transaction – rather than merely his incidental involvement as an officer of Re/Max. On the Court’s review of the SXC, the Court concurs with Gong, in that there have been no additional factual allegations made in the SXC that serve to establish Cross-Complainant’s legal right to pursue Gong individually. Specifically, the Court notes that Cross-Complainant alleges conclusory assertions of Gong’s liability, absent facts, and relies on Gong’s status as a supervisor to seek liability. SXC, ¶¶9, 27-38. These allegations remain insufficient to establish vicarious liability of Gong or to pierce the corporate veil, for the same reasons stated in the Court’s October 04, 2019, Minute Order.

Accordingly, the Court will sustain the demurrer.

Leave to Amend – While the Courts typically freely grant leave to amend, the instant action is somewhat unique, as Cross-Complaint puts it “all parties have all relevant documents after years of litigation.” Opposition, 16:5-6. As Cross-Complainant already has all the documentation they are likely to ever get, have been advised of the legal requirements needed to maintain the action against Gong, and have failed to make any substantive modifications to the facts alleged in the SXC, the Court considers that further amendment will be futile, and the court will sustain the demurrer without leave to amend.

---

RULING: see below

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

Cross-Defendants Re/Max Advanced Realty and Calvin Gong’s Demurrers came on regularly for hearing on January 10, 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:

RE/MAX’S DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS UNDER CODE OF CIV. PROC. §877.6.

GONG’S DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE