This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/09/2019 at 22:30:22 (UTC).

WEIJING ZHAO ET AL VS GLOBAL VALLEY LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 10/08/2015 WEIJING ZHAO filed an Other lawsuit against GLOBAL VALLEY LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB and RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7103

  • Filing Date:

    10/08/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB

RANDOLPH M. HAMMOCK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

ZHAO JASSIE

ZHAO WEIJING

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1-10

GLOBAL VALLEY LLC

KUO DAVID

LAW OFFICES OF JACK G. CAIRL - DOE 1

Not Classified By Court

KAM P LEE & ASSOCIATES CORP.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF HELEN WONG APC

GONZALEZ ROSENDO

NEACH BRIAN

Defendant Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL S. MAGNUSON

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION TO APPROVE STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE APRIL 16, 2018 TRIAL AND APRIL 8, 2018 FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; ETC.

2/22/2018: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION TO APPROVE STIPULATION TO CONTINUE THE APRIL 16, 2018 TRIAL AND APRIL 8, 2018 FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE; ETC.

Minute Order

2/22/2018: Minute Order

DECLARATION OF ROSENDO GONZALEZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR: (I) THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,600 AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID KUO AND GLOBAL VALLEY, LLC AND ETC

2/23/2018: DECLARATION OF ROSENDO GONZALEZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR: (I) THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,600 AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID KUO AND GLOBAL VALLEY, LLC AND ETC

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR: (I) THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,600 AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID KUO AND GLOBAL VALLEY, LLC AND THEIR COUNSEL, MICHAEL S. MAGNUSO

2/23/2018: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PLAINTIFF FOR: (I) THE IMPOSITION OF MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,600 AGAINST DEFENDANTS DAVID KUO AND GLOBAL VALLEY, LLC AND THEIR COUNSEL, MICHAEL S. MAGNUSO

RULING

5/1/2018: RULING

Minute Order

7/27/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

4/26/2019: Minute Order

Request for Judicial Notice

6/5/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Minute Order

6/10/2019: Minute Order

SUMMONS

10/14/2015: SUMMONS

Minute Order

1/25/2016: Minute Order

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1/27/2016: NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JO[NDER OF DEFENDANT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF HELEN WONG

2/18/2016: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JO[NDER OF DEFENDANT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF HELEN WONG

Minute Order

2/24/2016: Minute Order

ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS GLOBAL VALLEY, LLC AND DAVID KUO TO PLAINTIFF WEIIJING ZHAO'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

3/4/2016: ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS GLOBAL VALLEY, LLC AND DAVID KUO TO PLAINTIFF WEIIJING ZHAO'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order

5/16/2016: Minute Order

Minute Order

8/22/2016: Minute Order

NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

1/9/2017: NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT

90 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/19/2019
  • Notice (of Involuntary Bankruptcy Filing Against Defendant David Kuo); Filed by WeiJing Zhao (Plaintiff); Jassie Zhao (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • Order ([Proposed] Order Re Defendants' Ex Parte Application for Order Advancing Hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Global Valley, LLC (Defendant); David Kuo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 47, Randolph M. Hammock, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( for Order Advancing Hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Michael S. Magnuson) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Defendants Global Valley, LLC and David Kuo's Ex Parte Applic...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Ex Parte Application (for Order Advancing Hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Global Valley, LLC (Defendant); David Kuo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Declaration (of Michael S. Magnuson in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Global Valley, LLC (Defendant); David Kuo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Motion for Summary Judgment; Filed by Global Valley, LLC (Defendant); David Kuo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Declaration (of David Kuo in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Global Valley, LLC (Defendant); David Kuo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Separate Statement; Filed by Global Valley, LLC (Defendant); David Kuo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by Global Valley, LLC (Defendant); David Kuo (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
190 More Docket Entries
  • 01/08/2016
  • FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, 2. BREACH OF OBLIGATION OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; 3. VIOLATION OF CORPORATION CODE SECTION 17704.7; ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2016
  • First Amended Complaint; Filed by WeiJing Zhao (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2016
  • CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/08/2016
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by WeiJing Zhao (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2015
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2015
  • Summons; Filed by WeiJing Zhao (Plaintiff); Jassie Zhao (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/08/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by WeiJing Zhao (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC597103    Hearing Date: December 19, 2019    Dept: 47

Weijing Zhao a.k.a. Jessie Zhao v. Global Valley, LLC, et al.

 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Global Valley, LLC and David Kuo

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Weijing Zhao aka Jessie Zhao

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant David Kuo has failed to account to Plaintiff for her 50% interest in Defendant Global Valley, LLC.

Defendants Global Valley, LLC and David Kuo move for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants Global Valley, LLC and David Kuo’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION:

Motion For Summary Judgment

As discussed in connection with Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication below, Defendants have demonstrated that they are entitled to prevail as to each cause of action asserted against them. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

Motion for Summary Adjudication

Requests for Judicial Notice

Defendants request judicial notice of the following records from Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC612154: (1) Complaint in Interpleader, filed February 29, 2016; (2) Weijing Zhao’s Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Complaint, filed June 10, 2016; (3) Ruling on Court Trial Taken Under Submission and attached Statement of Decision, entered February 23, 2018; (4) Judgment on Complaint in Interpleader, entered May 10, 2018; (5) Notice of Appeal, filed July 6, 2018; (6) Abandonment of Appeal, filed October 31, 2018; and (7) Los Angeles Superior Court Case Access page listing documents filed in the case, dated May 21, 2019.

These requests are GRANTED per Evidence Code § 452(d) (court records).

Additionally, in reply, Defendants request judicial notice of the following records from the same case: (8) Defendant Weijing Zhao’s trial exhibit list, filed September 26, 2017; (9) Defendant Weijing Zhao’s trial closing brief, filed January 16, 2018; and (10) Defendant Weijing Zhao’s reply to Defendant Jennifer Faye Tan’s closing argument, filed January 31, 2018.

These requests are also GRANTED per Evidence Code § 452(d) (court records).

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections

Pursuant to CCP § 437c (q), the Court rules only upon objections to evidence that the Court deems material to the disposition of this motion.

Declaration of David Kuo

No. 1: OVERRULED. Sufficient foundation and basis in personal knowledge; does not assume facts not in evidence; not unduly prejudicial, confusing, or misleading.

Motion for Summary Judgment

No. 2: OVERRULED. See No. 1. The motion itself is not “evidence,” and the statement objected to is the same as that in No. 1.

Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections

Nos. 1-23: OVERRULED. Sufficient foundation and basis in personal knowledge; other objections go to weight.

Analysis

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)

When deciding whether to grant summary judgment or adjudication, the Court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers, except evidence to which the Court has sustained an objection, as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. (Ibid.)

Defendants did not separately number and list the issues for summary adjudication in their notice as is recommended: the “preferred practice is to state [each] claim or defense” as to which summary adjudication is sought “in language appropriate for adoption by the court if the motion is granted,” rather than simply stating, as Defendants did, that they are seeking summary adjudication as to each cause of action. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2019) ¶ 10:87.1.) Nevertheless, given that they did include their request for summary adjudication in their notice and then state the individual issues in their separate statement, they will be discussed below as stated in the separate statement.

Issue No. 1: “Kuo is entitled to a judgment on the first cause of action – breach of fiduciary duty.”

In this issue and all of the others, Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary adjudication based on collateral estoppel.

Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, “prevents relitigation of previously decided issues.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824.) It applies “(1) after final adjudication (2) of an identical issue (3) actually litigated and necessarily decided in the first suit and (4) asserted against one who was a party in the first suit or one in privity with that party.” (Id. at 825.) When those requirements are met, “the propriety of preclusion depends upon whether application will further the public policies of ‘preservation of the integrity of the judicial system, promotion of judicial economy, and protection of litigants from harassment by vexatious litigation.’” (Castillo v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 477, 481 (citation omitted).)

“Summary judgment is an appropriate remedy when the doctrine of res judicata in its subsidiary form of collateral estoppel refutes all triable issues of fact suggested by the pleading and supporting documents.” (County of Alameda v. Sampson (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 584, 589-590.)

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is barred by collateral estoppel because another department of the Los Angeles Superior Court found, in a previous action, that Plaintiff had no interest in Defendant Global Valley, LLC and therefore was not entitled to repayment of any alleged investment in Global Valley.

In the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant David Kuo owed Plaintiff a fiduciary duty as the Operating Manager of Global Valley, LLC. (1AC ¶ 30.) Plaintiff alleges that he breached that duty by “his failure and refusal to allow Plaintiff the access to the Company business and financial records, by competing with the Company and dealing with the Company as or on behalf of someone who has an interest adverse to that of the Company, by inducing Plaintiff to assign her 50% interest in the Company to himself in an unlawful and fraudulent manner, and by transferring the Company Property to a third party without Plaintiff’s knowledge and consent.” (¶ 33.) In other words, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kuo owed her a fiduciary duty as someone who had “50% interest in the Company.” (Ibid.) She also alleges, in the common allegations of the 1AC, that she contributed $2,250,000 to Global Valley and had a 50% interest in the company. (¶¶ 11, 19.) Plaintiff does not allege a fiduciary duty to her based on anything other than her alleged interest in Global Valley. Indeed, it is undisputed that this cause of action is “premised on Plaintiff’s being a member of Global Valley.” (Defendants’ Separate Statement (“SS”) No. 1; 1AC ¶¶ 30-33.)

Based on these allegations, if Plaintiff is barred from relitigating whether she had any interest in Global Valley, then her cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty would have no basis in law or fact, and Defendants would be entitled to summary adjudication of it in their favor. (Hodges v. County of Placer (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 537, 547 [noting that “[t]raditional examples of fiduciary relationships in the commercial context include trustee/beneficiary, directors and majority shareholders of a corporation, business partners, joint adventurers, and agent/principal” and concluding that the trial court properly sustained a demurrer where no such relationship existed].) Thus, the question is whether the previous findings of another department of this Court meet the requirements for collateral estoppel or whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether collateral estoppel applies.

  1. Final Adjudication

    The previous action at issue was entitled Law Offices of Jack G. Cairl, APC v. Weijing Zhao, et al., Case No. BC612154, in Los Angeles Superior Court, Department 39. (Defendants’ SS No. 2; Declaration of Michael S. Magnuson, Exh. 1.) That action ended in a judgment following a bench trial, and Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal that was later abandoned. (SS Nos. 7-9; Magnuson Decl., Exhs. 4-6.) Plaintiff does not dispute any of these facts. (Plaintiff’s Statement of Controverted and Uncontroverted Facts (“SCUF”) Nos. 2, 4-6.)

    Perhaps in an attempt to argue that the relevant issue was not resolved through a final adjudication, Plaintiff presents evidence that the actual “resolution” of the interpleader action was a series of settlement agreements. (Oppo., at pp. 9-11.) Plaintiff points out that Jennifer Tan, who prevailed in the previous action, agreed in settlement to waive “the right to any money, lien, interest, claim and/or cause of action in Weijing Zhao, etc. v. Global Valley, et al., LASC BC597103, as well as the right to any money, lien, interest, claim and/or cause of action against and/or as to Global Valley, LLC.” (SCUF No. 18; Declaration of Rosendo Gonzalez, Exh. 22 ¶ 1.) This does not, however, render the judgment in the interpleader action less than final. Indeed, the same settlement agreement states that Plaintiff “agrees to waive any rights she may have to contest or appeal the judgment entered in the Interpleader [Action], including any rights which she may claim in the funds awarded to Jennifer.” (Gonzalez Decl., Exh. 22 ¶ 3.)

    Thus, the previous action resulted in a final adjudication.

  2. Identical Issue

    The “identical issue” requirement addresses whether “‘identical factual allegations’ are at stake in the two proceedings.” (Castillo v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 477, 481.)

    In the previous interpleader action, it is undisputed that Plaintiff claimed entitlement to disputed funds received by Global Valley from its sale of the Crowne Plaza Hotel based on her alleged ownership interest in Global Valley. (SS Nos. 2-3; Magnuson Decl., Exh. 1 ¶ 13, Exh. 2, Exh. 3, at p. 7; SCUF Nos. 2-3.)

    Likewise, in this action, Plaintiff’s alleged ownership interest in Global Valley is the basis for her breach of fiduciary duty cause of action. (1AC ¶ 33.) Plaintiff also argued in the interpleader action that the issue of her entitlement to the funds based on her ownership interest in Global Valley was the same issue being litigated in this case. (SS No. 4; Magnuson Decl., Exh. 2; SCUF No. 4.)

    Plaintiff argues that the issues are not the same because the “claims or causes of action that were adjudicated in the Interpleader action were not the same causes of action or claims that are asserted in this lawsuit.” (Oppo., at p. 9.) The causes of action need not be identical to apply collateral estoppel, however. “Issue preclusion prohibits the relitigation of issues argued and decided in the previous case, even if the second suit raises different causes of action.” (DKN Holdings, supra, 61 Cal.4th at 824 (bold emphasis added).)

    Thus, the “identical issue” from the previous interpleader proceeding is involved in this proceeding.

  3. Actually Litigated and Necessarily Decided

    “When an issue is properly raised, by the pleadings or otherwise, and is submitted for determination, and is determined, the issue is actually litigated.” (Murphy v. Murphy (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 376, 802.] “A party urging collateral estoppel must prove that the issue was actually litigated and that the evidence was not restricted, but need not establish that oral testimony, or any particular type of evidence was presented.” (Id. at 803.) As for whether an issue was “necessarily decided,” that requirement is met when “the issue was not ‘entirely unnecessary’ to the judgment in the prior proceeding.” (Id. at 802.)

    Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff raised the issue of her ownership interest in Global Valley in the previous action. (SS No. 3; SCUF No. 3.) Thus, the issue was “actually litigated” in the previous action.

    In addition, given that the previous action was an interpleader action in which the court was tasked with determining which of many parties, including Plaintiff, was entitled to the proceeds received by Global Valley from its sale of the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Plaintiff’s alleged ownership interest in Global Valley was “necessarily decided” when that court determined that Plaintiff did not invest in Global Valley and awarded the proceeds of the sale to another individual. (SS Nos. 2, 6; Magnuson Decl., Exh. 3, at pp. 7-10; SCUF Nos. 2, 6.)

    Accordingly, the question of Plaintiff’s ownership interest in Global Valley was “actually litigated” and “necessarily decided” in the previous action.

  4. Asserted Against a Party or One in Privity

    Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff was a party in the previous action. (SS No. 2; Magnuson Decl., Exh. 1; SCUF No. 2.)

    Plaintiff argues that collateral estoppel does not apply because “different parties were involved in that lawsuit.” (Oppo., at p. 9.) For purposes of collateral estoppel, however, “it is not necessary that the earlier and later proceedings involve the identical parties or their privies.” (Vandenberg v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 815, 828.) Accordingly, “the collateral estoppel doctrine may allow one who was not a party to prior litigation to take advantage, in a later unrelated matter, of findings made against his current adversary in the earlier proceeding.” (Id. at 828-829.)

    Thus, in this action, collateral estoppel is being asserted against a party in the previous action.

    Conclusion

    As discussed above, it is undisputed that all of the requirements for the application of collateral estoppel are met as to Plaintiff’s claimed interest in Defendant Global Valley. This claimed interest also forms the basis for Plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.

    Before the Court determines that Plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty is barred by collateral estoppel, it must consider whether the doctrine’s “application will further the public policies of ‘preservation of the integrity of the judicial system, promotion of judicial economy, and protection of litigants from harassment by vexatious litigation.’” (Castillo, supra, 92 Cal.App.4th at 481.) Here, given that another department of this Court already expended resources to determine the factual issue that Plaintiff attempts to relitigate here, the Court finds that the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel to this issue will promote judicial economy and the integrity of the judicial system.

    While not particularly raising any public policy reasons the doctrine of collateral estoppel should not be applied here, Plaintiff does raise an additional argument: that the doctrine should not apply due to “extrinsic fraud” allegedly committed by Defendant Kuo in the interpleader action. Plaintiff does not, however, point to new evidence that was not considered in the interpleader action. (Declaration of Max Yueh, Exh. 8-10.) Thus, these arguments do not justify a refusal to accord the fully litigated issues in that action their collateral estoppel effect.

    Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Issue 1.

    Issue No. 2: “Kuo is entitled to a judgment on the second cause of action – breach of obligation of good faith and fair dealing.”

    Having determined that the issue of Plaintiff’s ownership interest in Global Valley as decided in the interpleader action has preclusive effect in this action, the only question remaining as to each of Plaintiff’s causes of action is whether they are based on Plaintiff’s alleged ownership interest. If so, they are barred by collateral estoppel along with her cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.

    In her second cause of action for breach of the obligation of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff again bases her claims on her alleged ownership interest in Global Valley. (1AC ¶¶ 38, 39.) Plaintiff does not dispute that this is the basis for her second cause of action. (SS Issue 2, No. 1[1]; SCUF Issue 2, No. 1.)

    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in connection with Issue No. 1, summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Issue No. 2.

    Issue No. 3: “Kuo is entitled to a judgment on the third cause of action – violation of California Corporations Code § 17704.07.”

    In her third cause of action for violation of Corporations Code § 17704.07, Plaintiff again bases her claims on being a member of Global Valley. (1AC ¶ 44.) Plaintiff does not dispute that this is the basis for her third cause of action. (SS Issue 3, No. 1; SCUF Issue 3, No. 1.)

    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in connection with Issue No. 1, summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Issue No. 3.

    Issue No. 4: “Kuo is entitled to a judgment on the fourth cause of action – violation of California Corporations Code § 17704.10.”

    In her fourth cause of action for violation of Corporations Code § 17704.10, Plaintiff again bases her claims on being a member of Global Valley. (1AC ¶¶ 49-50.) Plaintiff does not dispute that this is the basis for her third cause of action. (SS Issue 4, No. 1; SCUF Issue 4, No. 1.)

    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in connection with Issue No. 1, summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Issue No. 4.

    Issue No. 5: “Kuo is entitled to a judgment on the fifth cause of action – fraud.”

    In her fifth cause of action for fraud, Plaintiff again bases her claims on her alleged ownership interest in Global Valley, in that she alleges that Defendant Kuo defrauded her so that she would “agree to assign her 50% interest in the Company to him.” (1AC ¶ 59.) Given that the court in the interpleader action determined that Plaintiff never had any interest in the company, this cause of action must fail.

    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in connection with Issue No. 1, summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Issue No. 5.

    Issue No. 6: “Kuo is entitled to a judgment on the sixth cause of action – rescission of contract.”

    In her sixth cause of action for rescission of contract, Plaintiff requests rescission of the document in which she allegedly assigned her ownership interest in Global Valley to Defendant Kuo. (1AC ¶ 67.) Given that the court in the interpleader action determined that she never had any interest in the company, however, this cause of action must fail.

    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in connection with Issue No. 1, summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Issue No. 6.

    Issue No. 7: “Kuo is entitled to a judgment on the seventh cause of action – constructive trust.”

    In her seventh cause of action for constructive trust, Plaintiff again bases her claims on her alleged ownership interest in Global Valley. (1AC ¶¶ 69, 70.) In addition, a constructive trust is a remedy, not a cause of action. (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 76.)

    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in connection with Issue No. 1 and because a constructive trust is not a separate cause of action, summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Issue No. 7.

    Issue No. 8: “Kuo is entitled to a judgment on the eighth cause of action – accounting.”

    In her eighth cause of action for breach of the obligation of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff again bases her right to an accounting on her alleged ownership interest in Global Valley. (1AC ¶ 73.)

    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in connection with Issue No. 1, summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Issue No. 8.

    Issue No. 9: “Kuo is entitled to a judgment on the ninth cause of action – judicial dissolution.”

    Finally, in her ninth cause of action for dissolution of the company, Plaintiff again bases her claims on her alleged ownership interest in Global Valley. (1AC ¶¶ 76, 77.)

    Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in connection with Issue No. 1, summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Issue No. 9.

    Moving party to give notice, unless waived.

    IT IS SO ORDERED.

    Dated: December 19, 2019 ___________________________________

    Randolph M. Hammock

    Judge of the Superior Court

    Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org


[1] The parties should keep in mind that all facts in the separate statement should be “in numerical sequence.” (CRC 3.1350(d)(3).) Beginning each new issue with “1” makes it impossible for the Court to refer to particular disputed or undisputed facts with any clarity.