Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/04/2021 at 06:47:20 (UTC).

PING CHENG VS JADY WINGS, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 01/15/2019 PING CHENG filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JADY WINGS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DENNIS J. LANDIN and DAVID J. COWAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1314

  • Filing Date:

    01/15/2019

  • 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 Judges

DENNIS J. LANDIN

DAVID J. COWAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

CHENG PING

O'GORMAN GERARD

BIRDSALL CONSTRUCTION AND REMODELING

BIRDSALL JAMES

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY

G C G CONSTRUCTIONS INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION;

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

DOES 1 THOUGH 50 INCLUSIVE

CAL LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

WINGS LILLIAN

WINGS JADY

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

GANS GARY E

GANS MARC S.

GANS MARC

BUCHANAN NATASHA

PHELPS DANIEL J.

PHELPS DANIEL J

KIM AMBER

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

GREEN NOAH

Cross Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

BUCHANAN NATASHA

GREEN NOAH

 

Court Documents

Unknown - AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT (2ND)

6/1/2021: Unknown - AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT (2ND)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

4/22/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; HEARING ON D...)

3/1/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; HEARING ON D...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER - SETTING OF MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE)

3/5/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT ORDER - SETTING OF MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE)

Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

2/25/2021: Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil

Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING DATES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF DANIEL J. PHELPS

12/22/2020: Ex Parte Application - EX PARTE APPLICATION EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING DATES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF DANIEL J. PHELPS

Notice - NOTICE OF ORDER AFTER EX PARTE HEARING ON HEARING DATES, AND NOTICE OF VACATED TRIAL AND FSC DATES AND THE SETTING OF A TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

12/24/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF ORDER AFTER EX PARTE HEARING ON HEARING DATES, AND NOTICE OF VACATED TRIAL AND FSC DATES AND THE SETTING OF A TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

Proof of Service by Mail

2/8/2021: Proof of Service by Mail

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

6/16/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Request for Dismissal

5/21/2020: Request for Dismissal

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

6/3/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Unknown - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE DUE TO COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS

4/23/2020: Unknown - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE DUE TO COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS

Answer

4/1/2020: Answer

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND CROSS-COMPLAINT)

1/7/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND CROSS-COMPLAINT)

Cross-Complaint

5/21/2019: Cross-Complaint

Notice of Lis Pendens

4/10/2019: Notice of Lis Pendens

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

3/22/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Summons - Summons on Complaint

1/23/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

73 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/09/2021
  • Hearing06/09/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department 51 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • Hearing06/04/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department 51 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal (Cross-Complaint filed by Jady Wings et al on 1/14/2020 as to Gerard O'Gorman; and GCG Construction;); Filed by Jady Wings (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2021
  • DocketReply (Defendant's reply to plaintiff's opposition to motion for leave to file amended answer); Filed by Jady Wings (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2021
  • DocketAmended Cross-Complaint ( (2nd)); Filed by Jady Wings (Cross-Complainant); CAL LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC, a California limited liability company (Cross-Complainant); Lillian Wings (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2021
  • DocketOpposition (OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS? APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER); Filed by Ping Cheng (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2021
  • Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 51, Dennis J. Landin, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (for Leave to file Amended Answer or for Order Shortening time) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
98 More Docket Entries
  • 03/22/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Ping Cheng (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Ping Cheng (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by Ping Cheng (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2019
  • DocketAffidavit (Affidavit of Due Diligence); Filed by Ping Cheng (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Ping Cheng (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Ping Cheng (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ping Cheng (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STCV01314    Hearing Date: January 07, 2020    Dept: 51

Background:

On January 15, 2019, Plaintiff Ping Cheng (“Plaintiff”) filed the initial Complaint against Defendants Jady Wings, et al. (“Defendants”) for the following causes of action:

(1) Breach of Contract;

(2) Breach of Implied Contract;

(3) Quantum Meruit;

(4) Unjust Enrichment;

(5) Common Count;

(6) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; and

(7) Foreclosure of Mechanics Lien.

On May 21, 2019, Cross-Complainants Jady Wings, et al. (“Cross-Complainants”) filed the Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Ping Cheng, et al. (“Cross-Defendants”) for the following causes of action:

(1) Breach of Contract;

(2) Intentional Misrepresentation;

(3) Negligent Misrepresentation;

(4) Money Had and Received; and

(5) Conversion.

On October 8, 2019, Cross-Complainants filed this unopposed Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”).

The Court considered the moving papers and rules as follows:

Motion for Leave to Amend Standard:

The Court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473 & 576. Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. However, the court does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state

a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281.

The application for leave to amend should be made as soon as the need to amend is discovered. The closer the trial date, the stronger the showing required for leave to amend. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the Court has the discretion to deny leave to amend. Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490. Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.

Analysis:

Cross-Complainants proposes to add a new cause of action for a claim of recovery against contractors’ license bond based on the facts previously alleged by the initial Cross-Complaint that have been bolstered through discovery. Cross-Complainants represent that the FACC does not introduce any new facts and merely states all possible legal theories of liability available to them.

The Court sees no grounds for prejudice on Cross-Defendants by this amendment, as it merely adds another legal theory based on the same facts. Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 (“it is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments ‘relate to the same general set of facts.’ [Citation.]”). Cross-Complainants appear to satisfy all the procedural requirements and Cross-Defendants do not oppose on procedural grounds. Further, Cross-Defendants do not oppose the amendment to add the cause of action. See Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564 (where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails).

Accordingly, Cross-Complainants’ motion for leave to file the FACC is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Cross-Complainants’ Motion for Leave to File the First Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated:

__________________________________________

Dennis Landin

Superior Court Judge

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where American Contractors Indemnity Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer BUCHANAN NATASHA