This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/02/2019 at 01:15:34 (UTC).

QINRONG QIU VS HONGYING ZHANG

Case Summary

On 05/08/2018 QINRONG QIU filed an Other - Other Judgment lawsuit against HONGYING ZHANG. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Pomona Courthouse South located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are PETER A. HERNANDEZ and DUKES, ROBERT A.. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0270

  • Filing Date:

    05/08/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Other Judgment

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Pomona Courthouse South

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

PETER A. HERNANDEZ

DUKES, ROBERT A.

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

QIU QINRONG

Defendants

ZHANG HONGYING

BOXWOOD INTERNATIONAL LLC

YU XINGHUAN

YU. JIE

YU XINGHUA

YU JIE

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LI BIN LAW OFFICES OF

LI BIN

Defendant Attorneys

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP

ZHU JIE

DU GRACE YAO

 

Court Documents

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

5/8/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Request for Judicial Notice

6/11/2018: Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration

7/16/2018: Declaration

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

8/2/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Exhibit List

8/13/2018: Exhibit List

Declaration

8/13/2018: Declaration

Declaration

8/27/2018: Declaration

Tentative Ruling

8/27/2018: Tentative Ruling

Order

8/28/2018: Order

Other -

10/17/2018: Other -

Minute Order

10/24/2018: Minute Order

Substitution of Attorney

12/12/2018: Substitution of Attorney

Opposition

1/23/2019: Opposition

Minute Order

2/5/2019: Minute Order

Request for Judicial Notice

3/7/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Notice

3/27/2019: Notice

Case Management Statement

5/6/2019: Case Management Statement

Order

5/21/2019: Order

59 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/10/2019
  • Answer; Filed by HONGYING ZHANG (Defendant); Jie Yu (Defendant); BOXWOOD INTERNATIONAL LLC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department O, Peter A. Hernandez, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • Order (Ruling on the Court's Modified Tentative Ruling); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Case Manageme...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Reply (IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT); Filed by Jie Yu (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Jie Yu (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/06/2019
  • Request for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by QINRONG QIU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by QINRONG QIU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2019
  • Proof of Personal Service; Filed by QINRONG QIU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
103 More Docket Entries
  • 06/11/2018
  • Declaration (of Weiyi Bai in Support of Motion to Quash); Filed by Jie Yu (Defendant); BOXWOOD INTERNATIONAL LLC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2018
  • Request for Judicial Notice (in Support of Motion to Quash); Filed by Jie Yu (Defendant); BOXWOOD INTERNATIONAL LLC. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by QINRONG QIU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2018
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/11/2018
  • Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • Summons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by QINRONG QIU (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2018
  • Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC070270    Hearing Date: January 22, 2020    Dept: O

Counsel for Defendant Boxwood International, LLC, Reed Smith LLP's motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED. The order shall take effect when the proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the court clerk is filed with the court.

Good cause exists to grant the motion based on any of the grounds under Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(C). Rule 3-700(c) provides that an attorney may withdraw based on any of the following:

(1) The client

(a) insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or

(b) seeks to pursue an illegal course of conduct, or

(c) insists that the member pursue a course of conduct that is illegal or that is prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or

(d) by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively, or

(e) insists, in a matter not pending before a tribunal, that the member engage in conduct that is contrary to the judgment and advice of the member but not prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or

(f) breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees.

(2) The continued employment is likely to result in a violation of these rules or of the State Bar Act; or

(3) The inability to work with co-counsel indicates that the best interests of the client likely will be served by withdrawal; or

(4) The member's mental or physical condition renders it difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively; or

(5) The client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment; or

(6) The member believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.

The notice of motion and motion and the declaration shall be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. The notice may be by personal service or mail. If the notice is served on the client by mail under code of civil procedure section 1013, it shall be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either

(1) the service address is the current residence or business address of the client or

(2) the service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days prior to the filing of the motion to be relieved.

“Current” means that the address was confirmed within 30 days prior to the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned will not, by itself, be sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current. If the service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) shall apply. (CRC 3.1362(d).)

The attorney declaration demonstrates good cause for withdrawal based on an inability to obtain consent from the cancelled California limited liability company client. The moving counsel has also complied with the requirements of CRC 3.1362, serving the clients, Defendant Boxwood International, LLC, by mail with copies of the motion papers at the client’s last known address confirmed within the past 30 days.

The motion then is GRANTED. The order shall take effect when the proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the court clerk under Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) is filed with the Court.

Case Number: KC070270    Hearing Date: January 17, 2020    Dept: O

Plaintiff QinRong Qiu’s motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED.

JUDICIAL NOTICE is taken of Plaintiff QinRong Qiu’s (“Plaintiff”) Exhibits 1-5. (Evid. Code § 452.)

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment/adjudication has met his burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the plaintiff shows that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. (CCP § 437c(p)(1).) Once the plaintiff has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action. (CCP § 437c(p)(2).) The court must liberally construe evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve all doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party. (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

The motion shall be supported by affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may be taken. (CCP § 437c, subd. (b)(1).) Generally, one would not rely on assertions in a complaint to support a motion for summary judgment or its opposition. (See Frank and Freedus v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 461, 475-76.)

Recognition of Foreign Judgment

Under the California Uniform Foreign Money Judgment Recognition Act, a court of this state shall recognize a foreign-country judgment unless: the judgment was rendered under a judicial system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law; (2) the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or (3) the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the subject matter. (CCP § 1716(a) & (b).)

Furthermore, a court shall not recognize a foreign country judgment if:

(A) The defendant in the proceeding in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend;

(B) The judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present its case;

(C) The judgment or the cause of action or claim for relief on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state or of the United States;

(D) The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be determined otherwise than by proceedings in that foreign court;

(E) In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action;

(F) The judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to the judgment; and

(G) The specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law.

(Id. at subd. (c)(1).)

Plaintiff attempts to presents facts to show all the above elements for this Court to recognize the foreign judgment. Plaintiff contends that the SuZhou Court is part of a judiciary system that provides due process and impartial tribunals because the SuZhou Court requires that defendants be given notice of a lawsuit against them. Plaintiff had initiated a lawsuit against Defendant for breach of a loan agreement. (PSS 2.) Defendant HongYing Zhang (“Defendant Zhang”) was served with summons but failed to appear. (PSS 4.) Defendant XingHua Yu (“Defendant Yu”) retained a lawyer to represent him in the lawsuit and appeared in the case. (PSS 5.) While Plaintiff failed to indicate in the Separate Statement that the case was held in an open court session on June 15, 2016, the Court notes this fact as part of the judicially noticed documents. Furthermore, a trial was held where Defendant Yu was allowed to present evidence before the SuZhou Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. (PSS 7, 8.) Defendant Yu was also allowed to appeal the judgment, but the judgment against him was affirmed when Defendant Yu failed to pay the filing fees for his appeal. (PSS 9, 10.)

Plaintiff also shows facts that the SuZhou Court had personal jurisdiction over Defendants Zhang and Yu and the case. As already discussed above, Plaintiff properly served Defendants Zhang and Yu with the summons. (PSS 2, 4, 5.) There is no indication that either Defendants Zhang or Yu contested personal jurisdiction from the judicially noticed documents.

Furthermore, Plaintiff shows facts that the SuZhou Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Defendants Zhang and Yu and the case. The foreign judgment was a case involving Defendants Zhang’s and Yu’s defaults on two loan agreements between the parties. (PSS 1.) Again, Plaintiff failed to indicate in the Separate Statement that China’s laws allows for the court to adjudicate cases involving breach of contract, but the court notes this fact as part of the judicially noticed documents.

Thus, Plaintiff has met the burden to show that all the elements for an account stated cause of action are met, and the burden shifts to Defendants Zhang and Yu to show a dispute of fact under section 437c. Defendants Zhang and Yu failed to file an opposition to this motion to show dispute of facts.

Therefore, summary adjudication of this issue is GRANTED.