This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 07:39:49 (UTC).

WENLI ZENG VS HUI RONG DAI ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/08/2015 WENLI ZENG filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against HUI RONG DAI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is TERESA SANCHEZ-GORDON. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3512

  • Filing Date:

    12/08/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

TERESA SANCHEZ-GORDON

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Cross Defendant

ZENG WENLI

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

DAI CHEN

DAI HUI RONG

DOES 1-20

HUIRONG DAI

JIAO YUN

JUE JUN

CTBC BANK CORP. USA

DAI HUI RONG AKA DAI HUIRONG

JIAO YUN AKA YUN JUE

CATHAY BANK

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

CASTLETON LAW GROUP

DESJARDINS MICHAEL AARON ESQ.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

NIU WILLIAM L. ESQ.

JENKINS STEPHEN

IP CHI LEUNG

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

IP CHI LEUNG

ZHAO JENNY

 

Court Documents

Minute Order

2/16/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

3/1/2018: NOTICE RE: CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

3/7/2018: NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

Minute Order

5/17/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

9/20/2018: DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

12/5/2018: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

12/24/2018: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Notice of Deposit - Jury

3/19/2019: Notice of Deposit - Jury

Declaration

6/28/2019: Declaration

Motion for Reconsideration

7/15/2019: Motion for Reconsideration

Ex Parte Application

7/26/2019: Ex Parte Application

Notice

8/5/2019: Notice

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

1/22/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

1/22/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Minute Order

10/24/2016: Minute Order

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

5/8/2017: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Minute Order

5/15/2017: Minute Order

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

9/27/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

141 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/21/2020
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2019
  • Hearingat 10:00 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/27/2019
  • Hearingat 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 74; Jury Trial - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2019
  • DocketNotice ( of Posting Undertaking); Filed by Wenli Zeng (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74; Hearing on Ex Parte Application ( for Shortening Time to Hear the Motion for Reconsideration; Memorandum of Point and Authorities; And Declaration of Michael DesJardins) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Shortening Time to Hear ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2019
  • DocketOpposition (to Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Shortening Time to Hearing Motion to Reconsider & Propo); Filed by Chen Dai (Defendant); Hui Rong Dai (Defendant); Yun Jiao (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74; Final Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (Ex Parte Application for Shortening Time to Hear the Motion for Reconsideration; Memorandum of Point and Authorities; And Declaration of Michael DesJardins); Filed by Wenli Zeng (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
268 More Docket Entries
  • 01/22/2016
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Wenli Zeng (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2015
  • DocketNOTICE OF PENDING ACTION PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 405.20 RE: REAL PROPERTY AT 6221 ARCADIA STREET, CORONA AREA, EASTVALE, CA 92880 (LIS PENDENS)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2015
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Wenli Zeng (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2015
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Wenli Zeng (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/24/2015
  • DocketNOTICE OF PENDING ACTION PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 405.20 RE: REAL PROPERTY AT 20912 GRANITE WELLS DRIVE, WALNUT, CA 91789 (LIS PENDENS)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2015
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2015
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2015
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND FRAUD

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2015
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Wenli Zeng (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2015
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC603512    Hearing Date: January 21, 2020    Dept: 74

BC603512 WENLI ZENG VS HUI RONG DAI

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff argues new facts warrant reconsideration of the Court’s July 5, 2019 Order. Specifically, Plaintiff argues she “is currently a resident of the state of California, thereby eliminating the basis upon which the moving party’s right to an undertaking was based.” (Motion, pgs. 2-3.) Plaintiff submitted a declaration in support of the motion. Plaintiff declared she is a resident of California. (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶1.) Plaintiff declared she was born in Kunming, China, and she lived there from her birth on July 2, 1975, until December 2015, when she moved to California to pursue the instant action. (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶1.) Plaintiff declared she lived in California until March 2018, when she moved to Vancouver, BC, for her daughter’s school program and, thereafter, moved to Boston, Massachusetts in June 2019, to accompany her son, who is attending a summer program at Harvard University. (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶1.) Plaintiff declared the program ends in August 2019. (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶1.) Plaintiff declared that on July 12, 2019, she moved back to California in order to be present to prepare for the upcoming trial. Plaintiff declared she intends to remain domiciled in California through the disposition of the case and indefinitely thereafter. (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶1.) Plaintiff attached a copy of a lease agreement to her declaration. (Declaration of Plaintiff ¶2; Exhibit B.)

However, Plaintiff’s declaration is inconsistent with her deposition testimony. Plaintiff testified, on January 31, 2017, that her current address was in China, and she had resided at that address for five years. (Declaration of Zhao ¶3; Exhibit B.) Also, the timing of Plaintiff’s move to California is suspicious. Plaintiff declared she moved back to California on July 12, 2019, which is only one week after the Court granted Defendants’ motion for an undertaking. Moreover, the lease attached to Plaintiff’s declaration does not evidence an intent to stay in California. The lease is for six months – from July 12, 2019 to January 1, 2020. The trial in this action was continued to April 13, 2020, which is after expiration of the lease. Plaintiff did not submit other documentary evidence supporting her claim that she is a resident of California and intends to remain domiciled in California through the disposition of the case and indefinitely thereafter (i.e. a new lease, cancelled checks for rent/lease, receipts, photographs, etc.)

The deposition testimony, the short term of the lease, and the lack of documentary evidence suggest Plaintiff only intends to stay in California, if at all, for the trial.