This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 02/01/2020 at 09:11:23 (UTC).

SEMCO E&M CORP.,ET AL VS. MARGARET LAU, ET AL

Case Summary

On 08/22/2017 SEMCO E M CORP , filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against MARGARET LAU,. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is RALPH C. HOFER. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6936

  • Filing Date:

    08/22/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

RALPH C. HOFER

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

TSAI GRACE AN INDIVIDUAL

YU CHUN-YA AN INDIVIDUAL

TSAI SUSAN AN INDIVIDUAL

SEMCO E&M CORP. A TAIWAN CORPORATION

TSAI CARLON AN INDIVIDUAL

TSAI HSIEN LUN AN INDIVIDUAL

TSAI SHIH PAN AN INDIVIDUAL

Defendants

LAU JONATHAN C.M. AN INDIVIDUAL

NG WING TO AN INDIVIDUAL

AMAXI FOOD INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

WANG MACIE AN INDIVIDUAL

AMAXI NUTRITION PRODUCTS INC. A CA CORP

NG WING AN INDIVIDUAL

KHUN ANDREW AN INDIVIDUAL

LAU MARGARET AN INDIVIDUAL

LAU JONATHAN

NG WING

10 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

LEXINT LAW GROUP APLC

WONG SPENCER Y.

HSU ROBERT CHIHMING

Defendant Attorney

SABBAH MARK

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE ...)

1/7/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; POST-MEDIATION STATUS CONFERENCE ...)

Answer

1/8/2020: Answer

Amended Complaint

9/30/2019: Amended Complaint

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE TO FIRST AMEND...)

9/6/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE TO FIRST AMEND...)

Notice - NOTICE OF HEARING

9/6/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF HEARING

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

8/5/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

8/5/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

8/5/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/5/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/5/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/5/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/5/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/5/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

8/5/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

8/5/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

8/5/2019: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

8/5/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ANDREW KHUN'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

8/19/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ANDREW KHUN'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

91 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/28/2020
  • Hearing02/28/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Case Management Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/08/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by Andrew, Khun, an individual (Defendant); Jonathan Lau aka Jonathan C.M. Lau, an individual (Defendant); Margaret, Lau, an individual (Defendant) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/07/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Post-Mediation Status Conference (on Related San Bernardino Case, CIVDS173691) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/07/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 01/07/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Post-Mediation Status Conference ...)); Filed by Clerk

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/30/2019
  • DocketSecond Amended Complaint; Filed by Semco E&M Corp., a Taiwan Corporation (Plaintiff); Semco E&M Corp., a Taiwan Corporation (Plaintiff); Carlon, Tsai, an individual (Plaintiff) et al.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Post-Mediation Status Conference (on Related San Bernardino Case, CIVDS173691) - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (To First Amended Complaint filed on behalf of Defendant Margaret Lau) - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department D; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike (To First Amended Complaint filed on behalf of Defendant Amaxi Nutrition Products, Inc.) - Held - Motion Granted

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
175 More Docket Entries
  • 09/07/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/07/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Semco E&M Corp., a Taiwan Corporation (Plaintiff); Hsien Tsai, an individual (Plaintiff)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketSummons Filed

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by null

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/22/2017
  • DocketNotice (of OSC)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: ****6936    Hearing Date: May 28, 2021    Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar: 17
Date: 5/28/2021
Case No. ****6936 Trial Date: November 8, 2021  
Case Name: Semco E&M Corp., et al. v. Lau, et al.   
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL 
[CCP ;284, CRC 3.1362]
Moving Party: Sabbah & Mackoul, APC   
Name of Client: Defendant Macie Wang (No Opposition)  
Correct address in proof of service? (CCP ;;1013, 1013a) 
Client: ok    
Other parties: ok 
16/+5 day lapse? (CCP ;1005(b)) ok  
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order permitting attorney to be relieved as attorney of record in this action 
GROUNDS FOR MOTION:
Client passed away suddenly and unexpectedly on May 3, 2020, and died intestate, leaving no successor in fact  
DECLARATION BY MOVING ATTORNEY   [CRC 3.1362 (c),(d)]:  
Reasons why motion is necessary:    ok 
Address recently confirmed (within last 30 days)
by telephone   
PROPOSED ORDER (CRC 3.1362 (e)):   
Address and phone number of client set forth:    No phone number   
Proper warning: Yes  
Future dates filled in:    Not current  
ANALYSIS:
Counsel originally brought a motion to be relieved which was heard on February 19, 2021, and was denied without prejudice on the ground the moving papers were not in proper format, as the notice of motion and motion and declaration were not in proper format, as not submitted on the required forms.  The minute order also states that, “These defects raise concerns with respect to the proper method of service on the client with must be addressed under the statute in any further motion.”  
The motion is now in order, except for some minor problems with the order, which can be corrected by counsel before the order is signed.  The declaration indicates that the motion was served by mail at the client’s last known address, and that counsel confirmed within the past 30 days that the address is current by telephone conversation with client’s son.   This appears sufficient to give notice to whoever might be handling the estate of the deceased client. 
The notice fails to specify a telephone number for the client, which the court will need.  It would appear that under the circumstances, the telephone number of the son should be inserted in the order. 
In addition, counsel will be ordered to correct the order to reflect the current future dates in this matter. 
RULING:
[No Opposition]
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED. 
Counsel is ordered to correct and complete the Order to include at paragraph 5 the telephone number of the son who confirmed the client’s address is current, and to reflect information concerning the next scheduled hearing date in this matter at paragraph 7 (Status Conference re Mediation and Discovery on 6/23/21), and future hearing dates at paragraph 8 (Add OSC Re Mandatory Settlement Conference on 8/3/21).  Counsel will also check box 5 (a), and uncheck box 5 (b).
Once the Order is complete, the court will sign the Order and counsel will be relieved effective upon the efiling of the proof of service of the signed order by mail to the client’s designated address.   
GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES 
Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00.   Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court.  Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff.  If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative. 


Case Number: ****6936    Hearing Date: February 19, 2021    Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar: 30
Date: 2/19/2021
Case No. ****6936 Trial Date: November 8, 2021  
Case Name: Semco E&M Corp., et al. v. Lau, et al.   
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL 
[CCP ;284, CRC 3.1362]
Moving Party: Sabbah & Mackoul, APC   
Name of Client: Defendant Macie Wang (No Opposition)  
Correct address in proof of service? (CCP ;;1013, 1013a) 
 Client: ok    
 Other parties: ok 
16/+5 day lapse? (CCP ;1005(b)) ok  
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order permitting attorney to be relieved as attorney of record in this action 
GROUNDS FOR MOTION:
Client passed away suddenly and unexpectedly on May 3, 2020, leaving no estate and no successors 
DECLARATION BY MOVING ATTORNEY [CRC 3.1362 (c),(d)]:  NOT ON MANDATORY FORM
 Reasons why motion is necessary:    ok 
 Address recently confirmed (within last 30 days)
No  
PROPOSED ORDER (CRC 3.1362 (e)):   
Address and phone number of client set forth:    No phonr numnrt  
Proper warning: Yes  
Future dates filled in:    Not current  
ANALYSIS:
Procedural
Not on Form
CRC Rule 3.1362 (a0 provides that a motion to be relieved as counsel “must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-051).”   Under subdivision (c), the declaration of counsel must also be on the approved form.  Where service on the client is made by mail, the declaration must also state facts showing that the address was confirmed within the last 30 days.  CRC Rule 3.1362(d)(1). 
In this case, counsel’s motion is defective, as counsel did not make the motion on the mandatory form, and, partly due to this defect, the declaration does not contain the information required, which appears critical in this case, because it is not clear if service on the deceased client can be made by the usual means, and it is not clear how counsel has confirmed that there is no successor entitled to notice.  CRC Rule 3.1362(d) authorizes the service of a motion to withdraw on the client by mail where the motion is accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing the service address is either current or the last known address:
“If the notice is served by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must 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.”  
The rule further provides that;
“As used in this rule, ‘current’ means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before 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 or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current.  If the service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) shall apply.”  
CCP ; 1011(b) sets forth requirements for personal service of a party at a residence and provides “(3) If the party’s residence is not known, any attempt of service pursuant to this subdivision may be made by delivering the notice or papers to the clerk of the court, for that party.”  
There is no information in the declaration showing that counsel has complied with the requirement that “reasonable efforts” have been made to locate a more current address.  The official form lists efforts such as mailing the motion return receipt requested, calling the last known telephone number, contacting persons familiar with the client, or conducting a search.  The court will need this showing if counsel intends to serve the moving papers on the clerk of the court. 
The Order is on the required form, but does not include all current necessary information.   
RULING:
[No Opposition]
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  
The moving papers are not in proper format, as a motion to be relieved as counsel must be filed on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel— Civil form.  See California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362.  With respect to the declaration, under CRC Rule 3.1362(c), “The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney’s Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel-Civil (form MC-052).”  These defects raise concerns with respect to the proper method of service on the client, which must be addressed under the statute in any further motion. 
GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES 
Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00.   Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court.  Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff.  If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative. 


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where AMAXI NUTRITION PRODUCTS A CALIFORNIA is a litigant