This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/27/2019 at 15:44:17 (UTC).

SHU WU SUE CHUEH ET AL VS CAESAR GLOBAL ALLIANCE INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 05/04/2018 SHU WU SUE CHUEH filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against CAESAR GLOBAL ALLIANCE INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5149

  • Filing Date:

    05/04/2018

  • 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 Judge

ELIZABETH ALLEN WHITE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

HSU GLORIA

CHUEH SHU WU "SUE"

CHUEH PAUL

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

CAESAR GLOBAL ALLIANCE INC.

CHOW JUN

ER PIPER

CHEN LILI

DOES 1 TO 50

NEWPORT COAST CAR WASH AND STEVE'S DETAIL

CAESAR GLOBAL ALLIANCE INC. DBA NEWPORT COAST CAR WASH DBA STEVE'S DETAILING

CAESAR GLOBAL ALLIANCE INC. DBA NEWPORT COAST CAR WASH AND STEVE'S DETAILING

Defendant, Respondent and Not Yet Classified

NEWPORT COAST CAR WASH AND STEVE'S DETAIL

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LAW OFFICES OF WENDY Y. WU

LEE RICHARD H.

WU WENDY YU-JIE

LEE RICHARD H

WU WENDY Y.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

CHANG PEIWEN ESQ.

GONZALEZ ROSENDO

KUO HUBERT

KUO HUBERT H.

SETOGUCHI JON M.

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

KUO HUBERT

KUO HUBERT H.

 

Court Documents

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF SHU WU "SUE" CHUEH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS TO QUASH BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENAS DIRECTED TO BANK OF THE WEST, U.S. BANK AND JPMORGAN CHASE BANK

11/8/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF SHU WU "SUE" CHUEH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS TO QUASH BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENAS DIRECTED TO BANK OF THE WEST, U.S. BANK AND JPMORGAN CHASE BANK

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

11/7/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Declaration - DECLARATION OF H. HAN PAI IN RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SANCTIONS

10/24/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF H. HAN PAI IN RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SANCTIONS

Declaration - DECLARATION OF HUBERT KUO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

8/13/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF HUBERT KUO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION RE APPRAISAL PROCESS DEADLINES

8/12/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND ORDER STIPULATION RE APPRAISAL PROCESS DEADLINES

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

8/7/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CROSS-COMPLAINT

Notice of Ruling

5/31/2019: Notice of Ruling

Declaration - DECLARATION PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - S. CHUEH DECLARATION

5/17/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - S. CHUEH DECLARATION

Objection - OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF SHU WU "SUE" CHUEH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' SHU WU "SUE" CHUEH'S AND GLORIA HSU'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

5/23/2019: Objection - OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF SHU WU "SUE" CHUEH IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' SHU WU "SUE" CHUEH'S AND GLORIA HSU'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JUN CHOW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS' SUBPOENA ISSUED

5/23/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JUN CHOW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS' SUBPOENA ISSUED

Declaration - DECLARATION OF PIPER ER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS' SUBPOENA ISSUED

5/23/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF PIPER ER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS' SUBPOENA ISSUED

Declaration - DECLARATION OF HUBERT KUO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS' SUBPOENA ISSUED

5/23/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION OF HUBERT KUO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR AN ORDER TO QUASH PLAINTIFFS' SUBPOENA ISSUED

Objection - OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF H. HAI PAI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' SHU WU "SUE" CHUEH'S AND GLORIA HSU'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

5/23/2019: Objection - OBJECTION TO DECLARATION OF H. HAI PAI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' SHU WU "SUE" CHUEH'S AND GLORIA HSU'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Notice of Ruling

3/29/2019: Notice of Ruling

Notice of Ruling

3/12/2019: Notice of Ruling

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

9/24/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -

Declaration - Declaration of Piper Er In Support of Reply to Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Protective Motion

1/28/2019: Declaration - Declaration of Piper Er In Support of Reply to Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Protective Motion

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Defendants Jun Chow, Piper Er, and Lili Chen's Mot...)

1/31/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Defendants Jun Chow, Piper Er, and Lili Chen's Mot...)

238 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/26/2020
  • Hearing10/26/2020 at 09:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • Hearing10/21/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • Hearing02/20/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash Defendants' Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records - JPMorgan Chase

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/20/2020
  • Hearing02/20/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash Defendants' Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records - Bank of the West

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/19/2020
  • Hearing02/19/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Hearing on Motion to Quash Motion to Quash Defendants' Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2019
  • Hearing12/09/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2019
  • Hearing12/09/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department 48 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions to Court and Defense Counsel

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 48, Elizabeth Allen White, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketDeclaration ( of Piper Er Regarding Amount Of and Justification For Sanctions as The Result of Plaintiffs' Failure to Timely Complete the Appraisal Process); Filed by Piper Er (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/22/2019
  • DocketNotice of Ruling (ON DEFENDANTS JUN CHOW, PIPER ER, AND LILI CHEN?S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON PLAINTIFFS? COMPLAINT); Filed by Shu Wu "Sue" Chueh (Plaintiff); Gloria Hsu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
309 More Docket Entries
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Shu Wu "Sue" Chueh (Plaintiff); Gloria Hsu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Shu Wu "Sue" Chueh (Plaintiff); Gloria Hsu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Shu Wu "Sue" Chueh (Plaintiff); Gloria Hsu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • DocketPLAINTIFFS' VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/04/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Shu Wu "Sue" Chueh (Plaintiff); Gloria Hsu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC705149    Hearing Date: November 21, 2019    Dept: 48

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (COMPLAINT)

MOVING PARTY: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Jun Chow, Piper Er and Lili Chen

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Shy Wu “Sue” Chueh and Gloria Hsu

PROOF OF SERVICE:

ANALYSIS

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff’s request that the Court take judicial notice of the March 12, 2019 Notice of Ruling filed in this action is GRANTED per Evid. Code § 452(d)(court records)

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

1. Second Cause of Action (Conversion).

A. Re: Derivative Claim.

The injury alleged in this cause of action is to the assets of Caesar Global (Complaint, ¶ 78), so this cause of action is derivative. Plaintiffs purport to bring derivative claims (albeit without explicitly specifying which ones). Complaint, ¶¶ 62 – 65. This is sufficiently pled as a derivative claim.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the second cause of action is DENIED.

2. Third Cause of Action (Fraud – Concealment).

A. Re: Derivative Claim.

This cause of action alleges fraud by concealment committed against Plaintiffs, with a direct injury to Plaintiffs to the extent they were induced to initially invest in Caesar Global based upon Defendants’ concealments. Complaint, ¶ 88. The cause of action is properly asserted as direct.

B. Re: Failure to Plead Essential Elements.

Specificity is not required for pleading fraud by concealment. Jones v. ConocoPhillips Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1199.

Although the Complaint alleges future conduct allegedly engaged in by Defendants at ¶ 85, to the extent that Plaintiffs can prove that Defendants intended to engage in such future conduct at the time they made representations to induce Plaintiffs to invest, this may form the basis of a fraud by concealment cause of action. Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 158-59.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the third cause of action is DENIED.

3. Fourth Cause of Action (Fraud – Intentional Misrepresentation).

A. Re: Derivative Claim.

This cause of action alleges fraud by intentional misrepresentation committed against Plaintiffs, with a direct injury to Plaintiffs to the extent they were induced to initially invest in Caesar Global based upon Defendants’ concealments. Complaint, ¶ 97. The cause of action is properly asserted as direct.

B. Re: Failure to Plead Essential Elements.

The alleged misrepresentations made to Plaintiffs are sufficiently pled at ¶¶ 27 – 29, 93 – 94 of the Complaint. Plaintiffs are entitled to argue to a jury that, had they known Defendants would not risk any of their personal funds, but would instead put Caesar Global’s assets at risk for Defendants’ share of capital contributions, Plaintiffs would not have decided to invest in Caesar Global. ¶ 98.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the fourth cause of action is DENIED.

4. Fifth Cause of Action (Negligent Misrepresentation).

A. Re: Derivative Claim.

This cause of action alleges fraud by negligent misrepresentation committed against Plaintiffs, with a direct injury to Plaintiffs to the extent they were induced to initially invest in Caesar Global based upon Defendants’ concealments. Complaint, ¶ 106. The cause of action is properly asserted as direct.

B. Re: Failure to Plead Essential Elements.

Here, Plaintiffs plead a negligent false promise, i.e., that Defendants would each make capital contributions into Caesar Global from their personal funds. Complaint, ¶ 102. There is no cause of action for a negligent false promise. Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 159. (Simply put, making a promise with an honest but unreasonable intent to perform is wholly different from making one with no intent to perform and, therefore, does not constitute a false promise.”)

Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the fourth cause of action is GRANTED without leave to amend, unless Plaintiffs can demonstrate a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.

5. Sixth Cause of Action (Civil Conspiracy to Defraud).

A. Re: Derivative Claim.

This cause of action alleges conspiracy to commit fraud against Plaintiffs, with a direct injury to Plaintiffs to the extent they were induced to initially invest in Caesar Global based upon Defendants’ concealments. Complaint, ¶¶ 110(a), 114. The cause of action is properly asserted as direct.

B. Re: Not a Cause of Action.

“Conspiracy is not a cause of action, but a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration. … [¶] Standing alone, a conspiracy does [*955] no harm and engenders no tort liability. It must be activated by the commission of an actual tort.” (Citation omitted.) “A conspiracy cannot be alleged as a tort separate from the underlying wrong it is organized to achieve.” (Citation omitted.)

Moran v. Endres (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 952, 954-55 (bold emphasis added).

The separate cause of action for conspiracy is redundant, as the fraud causes of action are separately pled against Defendants. To the extent Plaintiffs wish to allege conspiracy among Defendants, they may amend to do so with respect to each fraud cause of action to which conspiracy pertains.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the sixth cause of action is GRANTED without leave to amend. However, Plaintiffs may amend to allege a conspiracy with respect to each fraud cause of action to which conspiracy pertains.

6. Seventh Cause of Action (Breach of Fiduciary Duty).

A. Re: Derivative Claim.

The injury alleged in this cause of action is to the assets of Caesar Global (Complaint, ¶ 121), so this cause of action is derivative. Plaintiffs purport to bring derivative claims (albeit without explicitly specifying which ones). Complaint, ¶¶ 62 – 65. This is sufficiently pled as a derivative claim.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the seventh cause of action is DENIED.

7. Eighth Cause of Action (Breach of Oral Contract).

A. Re: Derivative Claim.

This cause of action is based upon an alleged oral contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding the Capital Contributions Agreement. Complaint, ¶ 127. The terms of the Capital Contributions Agreement are set forth at ¶ 29. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ breach of the contract resulted in equity interest percentages which do not reflect actual equity interests based upon personal capital contributed. ¶¶ 35, 53, 132. The cause of action is personal to Plaintiffs, and is thus properly brought as a direct claim.

B. Re: Injunctive Relief Improperly Sought.

A demurrer [and thus a motion for judgment on the pleadings] does not lie to only part of a cause of action or a particular type of damage or remedy. See Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1046; PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (Ibershof) (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682. The proper procedure is to bring a motion to strike the substantively defective allegation. Id. at 1682-83.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the eighth cause of action is DENIED.

8. Ninth Cause of Action (Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract).

A. Re: Derivative Claim.

This cause of action is based upon an alleged implied-in-fact contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding the capital contributions to be made by each purported shareholder. Complaint, ¶ 134. The terms of the Capital Contributions Agreement are set forth at ¶ 29. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ breach of the contract resulted in equity interest percentages which do not reflect actual equity interests based upon personal capital contributed. ¶¶ 35, 53, 137. The cause of action is personal to Plaintiffs, and is thus properly brought as a direct claim.

B. Re: Injunctive Relief Improperly Sought.

A demurrer [and thus a motion for judgment on the pleadings] does not lie to only part of a cause of action or a particular type of damage or remedy.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the ninth cause of action is DENIED.

9. Tenth Cause of Action (Violation of Corp. Code § 1600 et seq.).

A. Re: Derivative Claim.

This cause of action is for violation of the Plaintiff shareholders’ personal right to inspect all books, records, and minutes of any Shareholders Meetings or Board of Directors Meetings of Caesar Global. Complaint, ¶¶ 142 – 148. This cause is properly asserted as a direct claim.

B. Re: Cause of Action Is Moot.

Whether or not this cause of action is moot is an evidentiary matter outside the scope of the pleadings. “Presentation of extrinsic evidence is . . . not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.” Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the tenth cause of action is DENIED.

10. Entire Complaint.

A. Re: Failure To Identify The Amount Demanded.

Defendants are correct: the Complaint fails to state the amount of money demanded, as required by CCP § 425.10(a)(2), which states:

(a) A complaint or cross-complaint shall contain both of the following:

. . .

(2) A demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader claims to be entitled. If the recovery of money or damages is demanded, the amount demanded shall be stated.

Accordingly, the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the entire Complaint on the ground of failure to comply with CCP § 425.10(a)(2) is GRANTED with leave to amend. If Plaintiffs cannot ascertain the amount of damages without discovery, they are to expressly state so.

Case Number: BC705149    Hearing Date: November 04, 2019    Dept: 48

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

MOVING PARTY: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Jun Chow, Piper Er and Lili Chen

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition filed.

PROOF OF SERVICE:

ANALYSIS

Notice of this motion was served by e-mail on October 8, 2019. There is no agreement to accept electronic service on file with the Court).

For cases filed before January 1, 2019:

CCP § 1010.6(a)(2)(A) provides:

(i) For cases filed on or before December 31, 2018, if a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission, electronic service of the document is not authorized unless a party or other person has agreed to accept electronic service in that specific action or the court has ordered electronic service on a represented party or other represented person under subdivision (c) or (d).

(Bold emphasis and underlining added.)

Because no opposition was filed, the Court cannot be sure that Plaintiffs received proper notice of this motion.

Accordingly, the hearing on the motion to continue trial is CONTINUED to December 10, 2019. Moving party to give proper notice of this motion and of the continuance.


[1] Note: Although the proof of service states that the documents were enclosed in a sealed envelope, there is no declaration that the envelope was deposited in to the U.S. mail.