This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/23/2020 at 15:12:10 (UTC).

CRUISE WORLDWIDE, LTD. VS MICHAEL MIN CHIN LIN

Case Summary

On 09/05/2017 CRUISE WORLDWIDE, LTD filed a Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation lawsuit against MICHAEL MIN CHIN LIN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Glendale Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are LAURA A. MATZ, WILLIAM D. STEWART and CURTIS A. KIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7255

  • Filing Date:

    09/05/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Assault/Battery/Defamation

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Glendale Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

LAURA A. MATZ

WILLIAM D. STEWART

CURTIS A. KIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Defendants

RC CRUISES INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.

LU LI-LIN

LU TERESA

CRUISE WORLDWIDE LTD.

Defendants

LIN MIN CHIN

LIN MICHAEL MIN CHIN

LIN MICHAEL

LIN MICHAEL KAI TI

CRUISE WORLDWIDE RC CO. LTD.

RC CRUISES INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

MILLER BARONDESS LLP

BOSKO DAVID

MILLER LOUIS R.

Defendant Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF PAUL P. CHENG

CHENG PAUL PO REN

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

12/4/2017: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OPPOSITION

1/5/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OPPOSITION

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Reply

4/16/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Reply

Declaration - of Jason H. Tokoro in support of proof of service of summons and complaint

10/5/2018: Declaration - of Jason H. Tokoro in support of proof of service of summons and complaint

Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

1/16/2019: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

1/28/2019: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Notice - Notice of Case Reassignment

2/1/2019: Notice - Notice of Case Reassignment

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Court Order)]

2/25/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for [Minute Order (Court Order)]

Case Management Statement

4/17/2019: Case Management Statement

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO C...)

4/19/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO C...)

Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

4/19/2019: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

5/7/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER)

Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

8/23/2019: Stipulation and Order to use Certified Shorthand Reporter

Declaration - DECLARATION OF CHIEN-CHEN LIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE

9/12/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF CHIEN-CHEN LIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

10/4/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE INCLUDING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE TRIAL COUR...)

12/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (STATUS CONFERENCE INCLUDING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE TRIAL COUR...)

Notice of Ruling

12/30/2019: Notice of Ruling

Case Management Statement -

7/2/2018: Case Management Statement -

171 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/09/2021
  • Hearing02/09/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/21/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (OF DEMURRING OR MOVING PARTY IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATIC EXTENSION); Filed by RC CRUISES INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD. (Defendant); MICHAEL MIN CHIN LIN (Defendant); MICHAEL LIN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/15/2020
  • DocketNotice of Appearance; Filed by LI-LIN LU (Plaintiff); CRUISE WORLDWIDE, LTD. (Plaintiff); TERESA LU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Status Conference (re Stay of Proceedings only) - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • DocketOrder ((re: Petition for Review)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/14/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Status Conference re Stay of Proceedings only)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/24/2020
  • DocketOrder by the Second Appellate District - Division Five; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • Docketat 4:09 PM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re STAY OF PROCEEDINGS)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
297 More Docket Entries
  • 10/19/2017
  • DocketDefault Entered (*DEFAULT VACATED AND SET ASIDE BY ORDER OF JUDGE LAURA A. MATZ ISSUED JANUARY 19, 2018* ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • DocketDefault Entered; Filed by CRUISE WORLDWIDE, LTD. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/19/2017
  • DocketDefault Entered; Filed by LI-LIN LU (Plaintiff); TERESA LU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by CRUISE WORLDWIDE, LTD. (Plaintiff); TERESA LU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2017
  • DocketProof of Service; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2017
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by LI-LIN LU (Plaintiff); CRUISE WORLDWIDE, LTD. (Plaintiff); TERESA LU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/05/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC067255    Hearing Date: October 09, 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 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.

Cruise Worldwide v Lin

Motion to Quash

Calendar:

18

Case No.:

EC067255

Hearing Date:

October 09, 2020

Action Filed:

September 5, 2017

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Specially Appearing Defendants RC Cruises International Co., Ltd.; Michael Lin

RP:

Plaintiffs Cruise Worldwide, Ltd.; Teresa Lu

ALLEGATIONS:

In this action, Plaintiffs Cruise Worldwide, Ltd. and Teresa Lu (together, "Plaintiffs") allege that they are in the business of selling cruise packages by Royal Caribbean and served as Royal Caribbean’s International Representative in Taiwan. Plaintiffs partnered with Defendants Michael Lin ("Lin") and RC Cruises International Co., Ltd. ("RC Cruises" and together, "Defendants"), and in April 2017, Lin asked Plaintiffs for a larger share of Cruise Worldwide’s gross profits, which Lu declined. Plaintiffs allege, thereafter, Lin engaged in a scheme to steal the company, renamed his company “Cruise Worldwide RC” to create confusion in the marketplace and mislead Plaintiffs’ customers, engaged in a smear campaign against Plaintiffs, and caused Royal Caribbean to end its 14-year relationship with Plaintiffs. Plaintiff also allege that Lin defrauded Lu out of a California bank account by promising she would be an authorized signatory to an account for commissions received from Royal Caribbean, but she was not provided access to the account as an authorized signatory.

The Complaint, filed September 5, 2017, alleges causes of action for defamation per se, tortious interference with contractual relations, intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations, fraud, conversion, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq., and declaratory relief.

PRESENTATION:

On October 04, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve Defendants pursuant to CCP § 413.10 by: (1) email to the address listed on Michael Lin’s business card; (2) service on defense attorney in this matter; and (3) mail to Defendants’ last 4 known addresses listed on Lin’s Taiwanese ID card, California driver’s license, and residence, and RC Cruises’ formation papers.

Defendants filed the motion to quash on May 12, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an opposition on September 04, 2020, and Defendants filed a reply on September 11, 2020.

On September 14, 2020, the Court continued the instant motion to October 09, 2020 and directed Plaintiff to give notice.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendants move to quash service of the summons and complaint on the grounds that service was not made accordingly to any statutorily authorized methods.

DISCUSSION:

 

Standard of Review – Without valid service of a summons, the court never acquires jurisdiction over a defendant. Hence, the statutory ground for the motion to quash is that the court lacks jurisdiction over the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1).) Code of Civ. Proc. §418.10 authorizes a motion to quash service of summons within the time allowed for filing a response to the complaint. If the motion is timely made, “no act” by the party making such motion, “including filing an answer, demurrer or motion to strike,” shall be deemed a general appearance. Code of Civ. Proc. §418.10(e)(1).

CCP § 413.10(c) provides that a summons shall be served on a person “[o]utside the United States, as provided in this chapter or as directed by the court in which the action is pending, or, if the court before or after service finds that the service is reasonably calculated to give actual notice, as prescribed by the law of the place where the person is served or as directed by the foreign authority in response to a letter rogatory. These rules are subject to the provisions of the Convention on the ‘Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents’ in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Service Convention).” Under subsection (c), defendants living in another country may be served with summons may be served by any other method permitted under the law of the country where the service was made, provided the California court determines (before or after the service was made) that the method used was “reasonably calculated to give actual notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 413.10, subd. (c); see also Rutter Guide, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (June 2018 Update) Ch. 4-D, §4:315 [stating subsection (c) does not mean much since few foreign countries have more liberal methods of service than California].)

“The adequacy of service ‘so far as due process is concerned is dependent on whether or not the form of substituted service provided for such cases and employed is reasonably calculated to give him actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard. If it is, the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (citation) implicit in due process are satisfied.’” (Shoei Kako Co. v. Superior Court (1973) 33 Cal. App. 3d 808, 818.)

Merits – Defendants make a special appearance to move to quash service.

On December 20, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to serve Defendants by (1) service on Defendants' counsel, Paul Cheng; (2) email to the address listed on Lin's business card; and (3) by regular mail to the address listed on Lin's Taiwanese ID card and the address listed on RC Cruises' formation papers.

Defendants contend that (1) the Court's December 20, 2019 order granting Plaintiffs leave to serve RC Cruises pursuant to CCP 413.10 is improper because CCP 413.10 allows service only on persons and not corporations, and RC Cruises is a corporation; (2) Plaintiffs may not serve RC Cruises via substituted service pursuant to CCP 416.10; (3) Lin is not the agent for service of process for RC Cruises; (4) the Court's October 04, 2019 order fails to comply with Taiwanese Law; (5) the Court should have issued a letter rogatory to the Taiwanese Court for guidance on service due to the existence of conflicting declarations as to how service should be performed; (6) service on Paul Cheng, Defendants' attorney, is invalid because Defendants restricted Mr. Cheng's authority to receive service; (7) and the methods of service in the Court's October 04, 2019 order are not reasonably calculated to give actual notice.

On review of the moving papers, the Court finds that Defendants do not contend that Plaintiffs have failed to serve them pursuant to the Court's December 20, 2019 order, but argue only that Plaintiffs have improperly served them despite adhering to the Court's order, and that the Court's order fails to comply with Taiwanese law. As the Court has previously adjudicated the merits of Defendants' arguments on the matter and granted Plaintiffs leave to serve Defendants in this manner, the Court will deny 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

Specially Appearing Defendants Michael Lin and RC Cruises International Co., Ltd.'s Motion to Quash came on regularly for hearing on October 09, 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 TO QUASH IS DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE