Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/31/2020 at 13:46:25 (UTC).

HCT GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED ET AL VS NICHOLAS GARDNER ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/04/2017 HCT GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED filed a Property - Other Property Fraud lawsuit against NICHOLAS GARDNER. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are SAMANTHA JESSNER and MONICA BACHNER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5615

  • Filing Date:

    01/04/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Property Fraud

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

SAMANTHA JESSNER

MONICA BACHNER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

HCT EUROPE LIMITED

HCT PACKAGING INC

HCT GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED

HCT ASIA LIMITED

HCT PACKAGING INC.

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

COGNISANT LLC

GARDNER NICHOLAS

COGNISANT LIMITED

DOES 1 TO 50

COGNISANT REAL ESTATE LLC

CHANG DERRICK

BROAD COURT PARTNERS LLC

LIM CINDY

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

HCT PACKAGING INC.

THORPE TIMOTHY

ADIR AVI

HSU JENNY

Not Classified By Court

GARCIA RAINEY BLANK & BOWERBANK LLP

RAINEY TABITHA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

GARCIA NORMA V.

ALMELING DAVID SEBASTIAN

Defendant Attorneys

TAITELMAN MICHAEL ANDREW

LORENZINI ERIC JOSEPH

SCHEPER DAVID CHARLES

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorney

ALMELING DAVID SEBASTIAN

Not Classified By Court Attorney

FELDMAN KENNETH CHARLES

 

Court Documents

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRD AMENDED CROSS-COMPALINT

5/30/2019: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT THIRD AMENDED CROSS-COMPALINT

Notice of Motion - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO MODIFY STAY TO PERMIT THIRD PARTY DISCOVERY

8/27/2019: Notice of Motion - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO MODIFY STAY TO PERMIT THIRD PARTY DISCOVERY

Notice of Joinder - NOTICE OF JOINDER (NAME EXTENSION) NOTICE OF JOINDER IN DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO MODIFY STAY

9/10/2019: Notice of Joinder - NOTICE OF JOINDER (NAME EXTENSION) NOTICE OF JOINDER IN DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO MODIFY STAY

Order - RULING

9/23/2019: Order - RULING

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

10/31/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

11/22/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

2/21/2020: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Status Report - STATUS REPORT JOINT REPORT REGARDING STATUS OF STAY

4/10/2020: Status Report - STATUS REPORT JOINT REPORT REGARDING STATUS OF STAY

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 06/15/2020

6/15/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 06/15/2020

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

7/16/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE AND STAY WITH PROPOSED ORDER

8/4/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX PARTE APPLICATION TO INTERVENE AND STAY WITH PROPOSED ORDER

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS; HEARING ON EX PA...)

8/21/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS; HEARING ON EX PA...)

Notice of Ruling

8/28/2020: Notice of Ruling

DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NICHOLAS GARDNER AND DEFENDANTS COGNISANT LLC, COGNISANT REAL ESTATE, LLC, AND COGNISANT LIMITED'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A RIGHT TO

1/18/2018: DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT NICHOLAS GARDNER AND DEFENDANTS COGNISANT LLC, COGNISANT REAL ESTATE, LLC, AND COGNISANT LIMITED'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A RIGHT TO

DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS GARDNER IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND ORDER FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

1/18/2018: DECLARATION OF NICHOLAS GARDNER IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A RIGHT TO ATTACH ORDER AND ORDER FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF ATTACHMENT OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: EX-PARTE APPLICATION

5/10/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: EX-PARTE APPLICATION

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER PERMITTING DEFENDANT TO SUBSTITUTE UNDERTAKING FOR RELEASE OF ATTACHMENT LIEN

4/17/2019: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER PERMITTING DEFENDANT TO SUBSTITUTE UNDERTAKING FOR RELEASE OF ATTACHMENT LIEN

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JIANING LIU IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION IN PART TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO FILE RECORDS UNDER SEAL

4/18/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JIANING LIU IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION IN PART TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO FILE RECORDS UNDER SEAL

175 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/20/2021
  • Hearing09/20/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department 71 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/10/2021
  • Hearing09/10/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department 71 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/14/2021
  • Hearing04/14/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 71 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • Hearing09/09/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 71 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Ex Parte Application for Leave to Intervene

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2020
  • Hearing09/09/2020 at 10:30 AM in Department 71 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Nicholas Gardner (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (to File Consolidated Brief in Excess of 15 Pages in Opposition to (1) Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Stay and (2) The United States of America's Ex Parte Application...) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Leave to Intervene) - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/21/2020
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 71, Monica Bachner, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Leave File a Consolidated Opposition) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
1,816 More Docket Entries
  • 01/10/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • Docketat 2:40 PM in Department 72; (Affidavit of Prejudice; Case is reassigned) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by HCT Asia Limited (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2017-01-09 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2017
  • DocketMinute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2017
  • DocketAFFIDAVIT OF PREJUDICE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO JUDICIAL OFFICER (C.C.P., 170.6)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/06/2017
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by HCT Asia Limited (Plaintiff); HCT Europe Limited (Plaintiff); HCT Group Holdings Limited (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by HCT Asia Limited (Plaintiff); HCT Europe Limited (Plaintiff); HCT Group Holdings Limited (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/04/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: (1) BREACH OF DUTY OF LOYALTY (CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE SECTIONS 2854, 2859, 2860, 2861, 2863; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC645615    Hearing Date: December 11, 2020    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

HCT GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED, a Hong Kong Corporation, for itself and its subsidiaries, et al.,

vs.

NICHOLAS GARDNER, et al.

Case No.: BC645615

Hearing Date: December 11, 2020

Defendants’ motion stay proceedings is denied except as to the depositions of Derek Chang and Cindy Lim.

Plaintiffs HCT Holdings Limited, HCT Packaging, Inc., HCT Asia Limited and HCT Europe Limited (“Plaintiffs” or “HCT”) move the court to continue the stay previously imposed on May 22, 2019 at the requests of Defendants Nicholas Gardner (“Gardner”), Derrick Chang (“Chang”), Cindy Lim (“Lim”), Cognisant LLC, (“Cognisant”), Cognisant Real Estate (“CRE”), Cognisant Limited (“CL”), and Broad Court Partners LLC (“BCP”). The United States of America (the “United States”) has intervened for the limited purpose of staying the proceedings. Gardner, Cognisant, CRE, CL and BCP (“Defendants”) oppose the motion to continue the stay.

“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489; see also C.C.P. §128.) In the seminal Keating case cited by all parties, the Ninth Circuit recognized “[i]n the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.” (Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 322, 324 “Keating”.) Nevertheless, a court may stay “civil proceedings . . . ‘when the interests of justice seem to require such action.’ ” (Id.)

“[T]he decisionmaker should consider ‘the extent to which the defendant’s fifth amendment rights are implicated.’ [Citation.] In addition, the decisionmaker should generally consider the following factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation. [Citation.]” (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885 (“Avant! Corp.”), citing Keating, supra, 45 F.3d at 325.)

Since initiating the instant action against Defendants on January 4, 2017, Plaintiffs have been coordinating with law enforcement to hold Gardner and Chang criminally responsible for the alleged conduct at issue in the instant matter. (Decl. of Lorenzini, ¶¶27-29.) Following a meeting between Plaintiffs’ counsel and the United States Attorney’s Office (“USAO”) on January 14, 2019, urging the filing of charges for conduct alleged in Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, the USAO emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel stating it planned to open an investigation into the conduct described during the meeting. (Decl. of Lorenzini, ¶28.) The USAO has confirmed it is investigating Gardner for criminal violations relating to the same conduct that is the subject of this case and expects to bring criminal charges against Gardner “in the coming months.” (Decl. of Wyman, ¶ 2.) Chang and his wife Lim have entered into a settlement with Plaintiffs (Decl. of Ameling, ¶5, Exh.A), and Chang has entered into a plea agreement with the government. (Decl. of Lorenzini, ¶35.)

Plaintiffs assert that the stay is necessary to avoid Gardner’s tactic to end-run the criminal discovery process and to avoid costly one-way discovery. (Motion, pgs. 1-2.) The USAO asserts that discovery should be stayed to protect important law enforcement interests. (Ex Parte Application “Application,” pg. 2.) Gardner now believes “it is preferable to take discovery to defend himself from HCT’s claims and to prosecute his cross-claims.” (Opposition, pg. 7.) Defendants’ counsel has been in communication with the USAO and indicated in deference to the USAO’s concerns, they would not depose Chang or Lim, but wanted to depose Mr. Thorpe and Ms. Hsu. (Opposition, pg. 6, Decl. of Lorenzini, ¶¶38,41.) In addition, Defendants propose about 20 other witnesses they intend to depose, in addition to additional written discovery and document requests. (Decl. of Lorenzini, ¶¶52,53.)

Plaintiffs and the United States are not entitled to a total stay of the instant matter. First, although the court should consider the extent to which the defendant’s fifth amendment rights are implicated, in this case, the factor does not “weigh significantly in favor of either outcome,” as Gardner, whose fifth amendment rights are implicated, opposes the stay. (See SEC v. Fraser (D. Ariz. June 1, 2009) 2009 WL 15318554 at *2 n.3 [denied USAO stay request opposed by defendant]; SEC v. Balwani (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2019) 2019 WL 2491963 *4 [same].

Considering the relevant Keating factors, the stay is not necessary. The first Keating factor relates to the interests of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argue that as Gardner may assert his fifth amendment rights, discovery would be one-sided. (Motion, pgs. 5-6.) First, HCT will be able to take depositions of third parties. As to Gardner, although he may choose to assert his fifth amendment rights, the assertion may expose him to an adverse inference. (See Keating, supra, 45 F.3d at 326.) This factor somewhat supports granting a stay.

The second factor weighs in favor of the Defendants. Continuing the stay would substantially prejudice Defendants as witness memories fade or witnesses become unavailable, Gardner has a strong interest in defending himself, and Gardner cannot obtain a judgment that could vacate or modify orders freezing assets. (Opposition, pgs. 18-20; Decl. of Lorenzini, ¶43.) Indeed, one witness has passed away. (Decl. of Lorenzini, ¶44.)

As to the third factor, the management of judicial resources favors lifting the stay regarding this aging case, Plaintiffs argues if federal authorities indict and convict Gardner this would resolve or simplify the case (Motion, pg. 8.) This however assumes there is neither an acquittal or a mistrial. Indeed, as recognized in Avant Corp! “Clearly, denial of the stay motion promotes the convenience of the court in the management of its cases.” (Avant Corp., supra, 79 Cal. App. 4th at 888.) Regarding the fourth factor, the interest of nonparties, no evidence has been presented regarding any burden on nonparties and as argued by the United States, “the interests of persons who are not parties are minimal.” (Application, pg. 10.) Nor does the fifth Keating factor support a stay. The United States generally asserts if Defendants are permitted to conduct discovery “such discovery would almost certainly bear on issues in the criminal case” and “[t]he public has a greater interest in preserving the integrity of the criminal investigation into a significant honest services wire fraud scheme than it does in the prompt resolution of the civil matters.” (Application, pgs. 10-122.) However the USAO has not presented any evidence or specific argument how a denying stay would prejudice the government’s investigation. As indicated by Balwani: “The Court is not unsympathetic to DOJ’s concerns that [Gardner] may attempt to overreach in civil discovery, but the Court is capable of addressing such concerns with a scalpel instead of a saw. As with potential concerns over the discovery burdens to nonparties. . . DOJ may object to any discovery requests that it believes improperly go beyond the scope of civil action. The Court will hear those objections and, if appropriate, sustain them. The fifth Keating factor does not support a stay.” (Balwani, 2019 WL 2491963 *4.)

The Court has considered these factors, and based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to stay proceedings, joined by the United States in intervention is denied, except as to the depositions of Derek Chang and Cindy Lim.

Dated: December 11, 2020

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer FELDMAN KENNETH CHARLES