NIAN LIU ET AL VS TONY XZ YU ET AL
Case Summary
On 07/25/2016 NIAN LIU filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against TONY XZ YU. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GREGORY KEOSIAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
****8249
-
Filing Date:
07/25/2016
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
Courthouse:
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
-
County, State:
Los Angeles, California
Judge Details
Presiding Judge
GREGORY KEOSIAN
Party Details
Petitioners and Plaintiffs
LIU NIAN
LI SOPHIA
Defendants and Respondents
EAST MISSION 8 INVESTMENT INC.
YU TONY XZ
HAN JOYCE C.
SUN YANQIU
EAST WEST BANK
DOES 1 - 20
CHIANG ERIC
ZHONG YIHUA
TLSC INVESTMENT INC
JADE ESCROW INC.
SOUTH FREMONT 8 INVESTMENT INC. - DOE 1
CATHAY TRANS INT'L INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
WANG AN INDIVIDUAL CURT YUNG CHIN
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys
TAHIM PAMELA K. ESQ.
THAKUR PAMELA TAHIM
APC THAKUR LAW FIRM
Defendant Attorneys
TSAY TOM C.
FU EUGENE SOLOMON
GARRETT ROBERT ESQ.
TOM C. TSAY INC.
RATNER ROBIN B. ESQ.
FU EUGENE
LAW OFFICES OF KIRK DOWNING
CHANG PEIWEN ESQ.
MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP
Court Documents
8/7/2019: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application
11/21/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE)
12/10/2019: Request for Dismissal
2/2/2018: DECLARATION OF PAMELA TAHIM THAKUR IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SOPHIA LI'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT EAST MISSION 8 INVESTMENT, INC., ETC
3/21/2018: PLAINTIFF SOPHIA LI'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT EAST MISSION 8 INVESTMENT, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,360.00
3/21/2018: DECLARATION OF PAMELA TAHIM THAKUR IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF SOPHIA LI'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT EAST MISSION 8 INVESTMENT, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY
10/4/2016: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT ON 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT
10/6/2016: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -
10/18/2016: SUMMONS -
11/1/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS -
12/16/2016: ORDER ON STIPULATION AND APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
12/28/2016: PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT EAST MISSION 8 INVESTMENT, INC.'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
12/28/2016: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -
1/23/2017: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT;POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION IN RE COMPLIANCE WITH MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT UNDER CCP 430.41
3/16/2017: Minute Order -
8/11/2017: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
9/12/2017: OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3085 AGAINST DEFENDANT EAST MISSION 8 INVESTMENT, INC.; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUT
9/15/2017: NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY
Docket Entries
- 01/28/2020
-
Hearing01/28/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial
- 01/21/2020
-
Hearing01/21/2020 at 09:00 AM in Department 61 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference
- 12/10/2019
-
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Sophia Li (Plaintiff); Nian Liu (Plaintiff)
- 11/21/2019
-
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Held
- 11/21/2019
-
DocketMinute Order ( (Post-Mediation Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk
- 11/12/2019
-
DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Sophia Li (Plaintiff); Nian Liu (Plaintiff)
- 11/12/2019
-
DocketAmendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name); Filed by Sophia Li (Plaintiff); Nian Liu (Plaintiff)
- 10/30/2019
-
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted
- 10/30/2019
-
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")
- 10/30/2019
-
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department 61, Gregory Keosian, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery")
- 08/12/2016
-
DocketPROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
- 08/12/2016
-
DocketProof-Service/Summons
- 08/03/2016
-
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
- 08/03/2016
-
DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk
- 08/03/2016
-
DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
- 08/03/2016
-
DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
- 07/25/2016
-
DocketComplaint; Filed by Sophia Li (Plaintiff); Nian Liu (Plaintiff)
- 07/25/2016
-
DocketVERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; ETC
- 07/25/2016
-
DocketSUMMONS
- 01/11/2016
-
DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by Joyce C. Han (Defendant)
Tentative Rulings
Case Number: BC628249 Hearing Date: February 25, 2020 Dept: 61
Defendants East Mission 8, Investment, Inc. and South Fremont 8, Investment, Inc.’s Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
“When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a).)
“Under the statute and the case law, there are thus two types of consolidation: a consolidation for purposes of trial only, where the two actions remain otherwise separate; and a complete consolidation or consolidation for all purposes, where the two actions are merged into a single proceeding under one case number and result in only one verdict or set of findings and one judgment.” (Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1127, 1147.)
The decision to consolidate cases is a matter for trial court discretion. (Todd-Stenberg v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (48 Cal.App.4th 976, 978–79.)
Kotai seeks to consolidate this case with the case 19STCV25738, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company v. Yu, et al. That case, like the present one, involves an allegedly wrongful use of the property 23735 Canyon Vista Court in Diamond Bar as collateral to obtain a line of credit, and contains the same parties as this action. (Motion at p. 4; FAC ¶ 21.) Kotai argues that both actions concern the same real estate transaction — Yu’s use of the property to obtain a $675,000 line of credit. (Motion at p. 9.)
The court agrees that this action and 19STCV25738 involve common questions of law and fact such that justice and judicial economy favor their consolidation here.
The Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases