This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/18/2020 at 01:19:15 (UTC).

FRANCIS HUNG VS. PAOSHENG CHEN

Case Summary

On 07/21/2017 FRANCIS HUNG filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against PAOSHENG CHEN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WILLIAM D. STEWART. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7028

  • Filing Date:

    07/21/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

WILLIAM D. STEWART

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

HUNG FRANCIS

Defendant

CHEN PAOSHENG

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LIU LAW INC.

KATHY Q. HAO ESQ.

EUGENE S. ALKANA A PROFESSIONAL LAW CRP.

ALKANA EUGENE STEVEN

HAO KATHY QI

Defendant Attorneys

DENTONS US LLP

WOO FELIX THOMAS

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION OF EUGENE ALKANA AND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF RU-MING LEE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH

10/7/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF EUGENE ALKANA AND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF RU-MING LEE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH

Declaration - DECLARATION OF EUGENE ALKANA RE OSC RE DISMISSAL

2/24/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF EUGENE ALKANA RE OSC RE DISMISSAL

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

5/2/2019: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (1ST)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF EUGENE ALKANA RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

11/12/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF EUGENE ALKANA RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

8/2/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Declaration - DECLARATION OF FELIX T WOO IN SUPPORT OF DFENDANT PAO SHENG CHENS FOURTH MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

7/9/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF FELIX T WOO IN SUPPORT OF DFENDANT PAO SHENG CHENS FOURTH MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS)

4/26/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS)

Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THIRD MOTION TO QUASH

4/2/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THIRD MOTION TO QUASH

Case Management Statement

3/12/2019: Case Management Statement

Notice - NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

3/13/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv

7/21/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice of Motion

8/30/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice of Motion

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-09-22 00:00:00

9/22/2017: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2017-09-22 00:00:00

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

11/15/2017: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Opposition

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-05-30 00:00:00

5/30/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-05-30 00:00:00

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

7/3/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

Application

7/3/2018: Application

Declaration - Eugene Alkana

10/9/2018: Declaration - Eugene Alkana

107 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/16/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons ((Fifth) Filed by Deft Paosheng Chen)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/13/2020
  • DocketSupplemental Memorandum In Support Of Defendant Pao Sheng Chens Fifth Motion To Quash Service Of Summons; Filed by Paosheng Chen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/07/2020
  • DocketDeclaration (of Eugene Alkana and Supplemental Declaration of Ru-Ming Lee in Support of Opposition to Motion to Quash); Filed by Francis Hung (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Dismiss - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Dismiss - Not Held - Rescheduled by Party

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Clerical Error

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons ((Fifth) Filed by Deft Paosheng Chen) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons (Fifth) Filed b...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
138 More Docket Entries
  • 08/30/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Paosheng Chen (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/18/2017
  • DocketRequest For Copies

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/17/2017
  • DocketRequest For Copies

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/16/2017
  • DocketRequest For Copies

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/07/2017
  • DocketProof of Service of Summons and Complaint; Filed by Francis Hung (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Francis Hung (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Francis Hung (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/21/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Francis Hung (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC067028    Hearing Date: October 16, 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 (without a valve) 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.

Hung v Chen

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

Calendar:

10

Case No.:

EC067028

Hearing Date:

October 16, 2020

Action Filed:

July 21, 2017

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Specially Appearing Defendant Pao Sheng Chen

RP:

Plaintiff Francis Hung

ALLEGATIONS:

Plaintiff Francis Hung (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he is an 81-year old American citizen originally from Taiwan. He alleges that he met Defendant Paosheng Chen (“Defendant”) in 1997 through a Buddhist couple. After meeting Defendant, Plaintiff decided to devote himself to Defendant, who claimed to be the “Living Buddha” and his organization, which Plaintiff later learned to be a cult and pyramid scheme. Plaintiff alleges that he truly believed Defendant was the Living Buddha and that he had been brainwashed for 20 years. He alleges he worked for Defendant for 20 years without pay and cleaned the Buddhist temple, purchased furniture and appliances for the temple, established several companies selling herbal health supplements, drove Defendant, and washed Defendant’s cars.

The Complaint, filed July 21, 2017, alleged four causes of action, and was served by substituted service on or about February 11, 2019. Defendant moved to quash service of the Complaint, which was initially heard on April 26, 2019, and continued to June 07, 2019. On May 02, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging five (5) causes of action sounding in (1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (“IIED”), (2) Conversion, (3) Fraud (Misrepresentation), (4) Negligent Misrepresentation, and (5) Elder Abuse (Financial, Welf. & Inst. Code §15610.30).

PRESENTATION:

Defendant filed the instant motion to quash service of summons on August 03, 2020, Plaintiff opposed the motion on August 17, 2020, and a reply brief was filed on August 21, 2020.

On August 28, 2020, the Court continued the instant matter to October 16, 2020 to permit Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a supplemental declaration from process server Ru-Ming Lee.

Defendant filed a supplemental memorandum in support of the instant motion on October 13, 2020.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendant moves to quash service of summons.

DISCUSSION:

As a preliminary note, the Court did not request supplemental briefing in its August 28, 2020 minute order. Thus, the Court could disregard the supplemental briefing submitted by Defendant on October 13, 2020.

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 Civ. Proc., §418.10, subd. (e)(1).)

"If a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served, as specified in Section 416.60, 416.70, 416.80, or 416.90, a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of his or her office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left. . . ." (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.20, subd. (b).)

Merits – On August 28, 2020 the Court allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to submit a supplemental declaration of process server Ru-Ming Lee to state facts underlying the contention that Jane Doe was an ostensible agent of Defendant. Specifically, “. . . Plaintiff contends only that Jane Doe was a receptionist at Defendant's usual place of business. While this raises an inference of ostensible agency, further surrounding facts are needed for the court to find such a definite implication or make the finding otherwise.” The subsequently-filed declaration states that Ru-Ming Lee observed a notice posted on the glass door of Antiaging Vanguard System International Enterprise Co., Ltd. ("AVS") referring business visitors next door to the Chunghwa Buddhism Yuntsz Jennfa Association ("CBY"), which led Ru-Ming Lee to assume that the two firms were related. The declaration further states that Ru-Ming Lee stated his purpose to a janitor at the common public area in front of AVS and CBY, who called out to Jane Doe, who approached from the front desk of CBY. Ru-Ming Lee further states that the Jane Doe's apparent authority given these circumstances led him to believe that Jane Doe was in charge for both AVS and CBY. (Decl. Ru-Ming Lee, ¶ 2.)

The Court finds that these facts are sufficient to make a finding that Jane Doe was an ostensible agent of Defendant. The Court will thus 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 Defendant Pao Sheng Chen’s Motion to Quash Service came on regularly for hearing on October 16, 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 IS DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE