Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/03/2019 at 04:35:14 (UTC).

COOPER INVESTORS PROPERTIES LLC VS MING YANG

Case Summary

On 12/04/2017 COOPER INVESTORS PROPERTIES LLC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MING YANG. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GLORIA WHITE-BROWN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****9858

  • Filing Date:

    12/04/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

GLORIA WHITE-BROWN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

COOPER INVESTORS PROPERTIES LLC

Defendants

YANG MING

CHEN RAYMOND

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

BOWER LESLIE A. ESQ

BOWER LESLIE ANNE ESQ

Defendant Attorney

HOLLINGSWORTH GERALD VERNON JR

 

Court Documents

Complaint

12/4/2017: Complaint

Summons

12/4/2017: Summons

Civil Case Cover Sheet

12/4/2017: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Unknown

12/4/2017: Unknown

Notice of Case Management Conference

12/6/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference

Unknown

1/2/2018: Unknown

Unknown

1/9/2018: Unknown

Unknown

1/30/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

3/1/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

3/13/2018: Unknown

Declaration

9/7/2018: Declaration

Minute Order

9/14/2018: Minute Order

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

12/19/2018: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Minute Order

3/20/2019: Minute Order

Motion to Compel Discovery

3/28/2019: Motion to Compel Discovery

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

4/15/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Request for Refund / Order

4/17/2019: Request for Refund / Order

Minute Order

4/26/2019: Minute Order

13 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/26/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Order (Tentative Ruling); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery"))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/17/2019
  • Request for Refund / Order; Filed by MING YANG (Defendant); RAYMOND CHEN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Objection (Objection to Evidence of Raymond Chen in support of Motion to Compel); Filed by COOPER INVESTORS PROPERTIES LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by COOPER INVESTORS PROPERTIES LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2019
  • Opposition (Opposition to Motion to Compel); Filed by COOPER INVESTORS PROPERTIES LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion; Filed by RAYMOND CHEN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department J, Gloria White-Brown, Presiding; Status Conference (ReArbitration) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference Re: Arbitration)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
12 More Docket Entries
  • 03/01/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-03-01 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/01/2018
  • Stipulation and Order; Filed by COOPER INVESTORS PROPERTIES LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • Default Entered; Filed by COOPER INVESTORS PROPERTIES LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2018
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by COOPER INVESTORS PROPERTIES LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/02/2018
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by COOPER INVESTORS PROPERTIES LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by COOPER INVESTORS PROPERTIES LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by COOPER INVESTORS PROPERTIES LLC (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2017
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2017
  • Summons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC069858    Hearing Date: September 04, 2020    Dept: J

OSC DATE: Friday, September 4, 2020

RE: Cooper Investors Properties, LLC v. Yang, et al. (KC069858)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff Cooper Investors Properties, LLC’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT [AMENDED]

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Cooper Investors Properties, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff Cooper Investors Properties, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges that, effective February 1, 2014, Plaintiff’s assignor, America West Investment, Inc. (“AWII”), entered into a written lease agreement (“Agreement”) with Defendant Ming Yang’s (“Yang”) assignor, Defendant Raymond Chen (“Chen”), regarding the premises located at 18558 Gale Avenue, #270 & 272, City of Industry, California, 91748 (“Premises”). Plaintiff alleges that Yang and Chen breached the Agreement by failing to pay rent and by vacating the Premises prior to the expiration of the lease. On December 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Yang, Chen and Does 1-10 for:

  1. Breach of Contract

On January 30, 2018, Yang’s default was entered.

On March 1, 2018, a “Stipulation [and Order] to Submit Action as to Defendant Raymond Chen to Arbitration and Order to Stay Action Pending Arbitration” was filed. On July 22, 2020, the court granted Plaintiff’s “Motion for an Order to Confirm Arbitration Award Against Raymond Chen,” as corrected.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment as to Yang and a Trial Setting Conference are set for September 4, 2020.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

  1. Plaintiff has failed to comply with California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800(a)(7)

(i.e., “[a] dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment.”)

ANALYSIS

Yes (1/30/18) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

No Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an

application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP

579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).)

Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).)

No Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup, supra, 42 Cal.3d at 824.)

Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).)

Yes Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.)

Yes __ _______ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.)

Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.)

Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.)

Yes Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).)

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.)

N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

Case Number: KC069858    Hearing Date: July 22, 2020    Dept: J

OSC DATE: Wednesday, July 22, 2020

RE: Cooper Investors Properties, LLC v. Yang, et al. (KC069858)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff Cooper Investors Properties, LLC’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Cooper Investors Properties, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff Cooper Investors Properties, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges that, effective February 1, 2014, Plaintiff’s assignor, America West Investment, Inc. (“AWII”), entered into a written lease agreement (“Agreement”) with Defendant Ming Yang’s (“Yang”) assignor, Defendant Raymond Chen (“Chen”), regarding the premises located at 18558 Gale Avenue, #270 & 272, City of Industry, California, 91748 (“Premises”). Plaintiff alleges that Yang and Chen breached the Agreement by failing to pay rent and by vacating the Premises prior to the expiration of the lease. On December 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Yang, Chen and Does 1-10 for:

  1. Breach of Contract

On January 30, 2018, Yang’s default was entered.

On March 1, 2018, a “Stipulation [and Order] to Submit Action as to Defendant Raymond Chen to Arbitration and Order to Stay Action Pending Arbitration” was filed.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment as to Yang and a Trial Setting Conference are set for July 22, 2020.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

  1. Plaintiff’s Judicial Council form CIV-100 Request for Court Judgment lists $132,816.95 as the demand of complaint. The complaint filed December 4, 2017, however, identifies damages as $56,510.13. “The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint . . .” (CCP § 580(a).) “[I]n all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery.” (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.)

  2. Plaintiff has not complied with California Rules of Court 3.1800(a)(1) or (a)(7).)

  3. Plaintiff does not provide a calculation of attorney’s fees or interest. It is further unclear how Yang would be liable for all costs and attorney’s fees incurred in the arbitration proceedings. Plaintiff is requested to provide authority for same.

ANALYSIS

Yes (1/30/18) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

No Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an

application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP

579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).)

Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).)

No Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup, supra, 42 Cal.3d at 824.)

No Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).)

See above Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.)

No __ _______ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts - Civ. Code 3289.)

Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.)

Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.)

Yes Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).)

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.)

N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)

HEARING DATE: Wednesday, July 22, 2020

NOTICE: OK[1]

RE: Cooper Investors Properties, LLC v. Yang, et al. (KC069858)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff Cooper Investors Properties, LLC’s MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO CONFIRM

ARBITRATION AWARD AGAINST RAYMOND CHEN, AN INDIVIDUAL

Responding Party: Defendant, Raymond Chen

Tentative Ruling

The court corrects the September 11, 2019 Final Award by striking out Paragraph 3 under

“IV. CONCLUSION” and confirms the September 11, 2019 Final Award as corrected.

Background

Plaintiff Cooper Investors Properties, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges that, effective February 1, 2014, Plaintiff’s assignor, America West Investment, Inc. (“AWII”), entered into a written lease agreement (“Agreement”) with Defendant Ming Yang’s (“Yang”) assignor, Defendant Raymond Chen (“Chen”), regarding the premises located at 18558 Gale Avenue, #270 & 272, City of Industry, California, 91748 (“Premises”). Plaintiff alleges that Yang and Chen breached the Agreement by failing to pay rent and by vacating the Premises prior to the expiration of the lease. On December 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Yang, Chen and Does 1-10 for:

  1. Breach of Contract

On January 30, 2018, Yang’s default was entered.

On March 1, 2018, a “Stipulation [and Order] to Submit Action as to Defendant Raymond Chen to Arbitration and Order to Stay Action Pending Arbitration” was filed.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment as to Yang and a Trial Setting Conference are set for July 22, 2020.

Legal Standard

“[A]n arbitration award is not directly enforceable because it has the same force and effect as a contract in writing between the parties to the arbitration until it has been confirmed or vacated.” (Loeb v. Record (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 431, 449 [quotations and citation omitted].)

“If a petition or response under this chapter is duly served and filed, the court shall confirm the award as made, whether rendered in this state or another state, unless in accordance with this chapter it corrects the award and confirms it as corrected, vacates the award or dismisses the proceeding.” (CCP § 1286.)

The court must confirm the award as made, unless it corrects or vacates the award, or dismisses the proceeding. (CCP § 1286; Valsan Partners Limited Partnership v. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 809, 818.)

Any party to an arbitration may petition the court to confirm an arbitration award. (CCP § 1285.) The petition must be served on the other parties to the arbitration and must set forth the substance of or attach the arbitration agreement, include the name of the arbitrator, and attach a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrator, if any. (CCP § 1285.4(b), (c).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves the court for an order confirming the September 11, 2019 arbitration award issued by the Honorable Terry B. Friedman, Ret. (“Arbitrator”) in favor of Plaintiff and against Chen.

Timeliness

 

A copy of the petition, all supporting papers, and written notice of the time and place of the hearing must be served in the manner specified in the arbitration agreement for service of such petition and notice no earlier than 10 days, but no later than 4 years, after service of the award on the petitioner. (CCP §§ 1288, 1288.4, 1290.4(a).)

After a petition to confirm an arbitration award has been served and filed, a response to the petition must be served and filed within 10 days after service of the petition, or within 30 days if service was out of state, which time may be extended by agreement in writing between the parties to the court proceedings or, for good cause, by order of the court. (CCP § 1290.6.)

Here, the petition is timely. Plaintiff served the petition along with a copy of the agreement containing the arbitration clause and final award on December 18, 2019, which is not earlier than 10 days or later than 4 years after Petitioners were served with the arbitration award on September 12, 2019.

The opposition, however, is not timely. Since the petition was served on December 18, 2019 via mail, Chen’s deadline to respond was January 2, 2020 (10 days plus 5 day extension for mail service). The opposition was not filed until July 6, 2020. Chen has not provided the court with evidence of any written agreement between the parties regarding an extension of time to serve and file a response. With that said, “[t]he trial court may consider untimely filed and served response papers, when no prejudice to the petitioner is shown, without an order extending the 10-day time period of section 1290.6.” (Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, 847.) The court elects to consider the response papers on their merits, inasmuch as no prejudice has been articulated by Plaintiff.

Evidentiary Objections

The court rules on Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections as follows: Sustained as to Nos. 1 and 2.

Merits

The petition complies with the requirements of CCP § 1285.4. Plaintiff indicates that the arbitration is pursuant to ¶ 52 of the parties’ “Lease Agreement” (“Agreement”) (Montez Decl., ¶6, Exh. A, ¶52.) The petition sets forth the name of the arbitrator and attaches a copy of the September 11, 2019 Final Award. (Petition, 2:24-28; Montez Decl., ¶3, Exh. C.)

In response, Chen cites to CCP § 1286.2(a)(4)[2] and argues that the Arbitrator exceeded his powers in awarding damages which were three times the amount sought in Plaintiff’s complaint and Arbitration Demand (including time periods after March 2016 to June 2018), that the Arbitrator’s Final Award ignored the requirement that notice be given to a tenant before a default in the lease and that the Final Award was based on a misleading accounting. CCP § 1286.2(a)(4), however, “is narrowly construed. Arbitrators do not exceed their powers by reaching erroneous factual or legal conclusions on the merits of the parties’ claims, even if the award causes substantial injustice to one of the parties.” (Emerald Aero, LLC v. Kaplan (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 1125, 1138.)

As to the issue of notice of the amount of damages, moreover, Plaintiff submits that Chen had 76 days’ notice of the damages Plaintiff demanded at the arbitration prior to the start of the hearing in the form of verified responses to Special Interrogatories. (Montez Decl., ¶2, Exh. D, No. 6[3].) Plaintiff subsequently served further verified responses to Special Interrogatories, wherein he reiterated the grand total sought from Chen of $132,816.95. (Id., ¶4, Exh. E, No. 6.) These two sets of responses were arbitration hearing exhibits (i.e., Nos. 117 and 33, respectively). (Id., ¶5, Exh. 7.) No. 117, in fact, was among the exhibits proffered by Chen at arbitration. (Id.)

Chen next claims that the Final Award is moot in its entirety because it provided that Plaintiff must return Chen’s table sets to Chen and Plaintiff has since admitted they have been lost. The court can only correct the award if (1) there is an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award within the award, (b) the arbitrator exceeded their powers but the award may be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted, or (c) the award is imperfect in a matter of form. (CCP § 1286.6.) Here, Chen never filed a cross-complaint or counter-demand for arbitration and never requested reimbursement for any table sets at any point. (Montez Supp. Decl., ¶6.) The issue of the table sets, then, was not submitted to the Arbitrator and is clearly severable.

Accordingly, the court corrects the September 11, 2019 Final Award by striking out Paragraph 3

under “IV. CONCLUSION” and confirms the September 11, 2019 Final Award as corrected.

 


[1] The motion was filed and mail-served on December 18, 2019 and originally set for hearing on April 27, 2020. On March 20, 2020, a “Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order” was filed, in which the court, on its own motion, reset the April 27, 2020 hearing date to July 22, 2002 at 8:30 a.m.; notice was given to counsel for Plaintiff and Chen. On May 5, 2020, the court, on its own motion, reset the time of the July 22, 2020 to 10:00 a.m.; notice was given to counsel for Plaintiff and Chen. On May 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed (email-served on May 21, 2020) a “Notice of Rescheduled Hearings,” advising therein of the July 22, 2020 hearing date/time.

[2] This provision reads as follows: “Subject to Section 1286.4, the court shall vacate the award if the court determines any of the following: . . . (4) The arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted.”

[3] Special Interrogatory No. 6 read, “Identify the total amount of monthly rent payment(s) and payment(s) for all other charges in any nature supposedly responsible by the first tenant of the PREMISES, namely, respondent Raymond Chen pursuant to the Lease Agreement for April 22, 2013 to June 30, 2018 (hereafter referred to as ‘Lease Agreement’).”

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where COOPER INVESTORS PROPERTIES LLC; A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BOWER, LESLIE A