Case Name:    Chi Kin Hui, et al. v. Quan Zhong Zhang, et al.

Case No.:        1-09-CV-149951

Plaintiffs and cross-defendants Chi Kin Hui and Pui Ling Hui (collectively, “the Huis”) move for summary adjudication of the cause of action for declaratory relief asserted in the 1-13-CV-239835 complaint that seeks reformation of the note and deed of trust.  Specifically, the claim alleges that reformation of the note and deed of trust is necessary since the parties were mistaken with regards to the joint nature of the note and deed of trust.

The instant motion asserts that the claim lacks merit because: it is time-barred; and, defendants and cross-complainants Quan Zhong Zhang and Li-Hong Liang (collectively, “the Zhangs”) have admitted in prior pleadings that there was no mistake with regards to the joint nature of the note and deed of trust.

In support of their motion, the Huis present evidence demonstrating that the Zhangs have admitted that the obligations of the note and deed of trust were held jointly between them and Gary Hom and Dai Hua Cai (collectively, “the Homs”).  Further, it is clear that the Zhangs’ declaratory relief claim seeking reformation was filed more than three years after the discovery of any facts constituting the mistake.  (See Code Civ. Proc. § 338, subd. (d).)  The Huis meet their burden to demonstrate the declaratory relief claim asserted in the 1-13-CV-239835 complaint lacks merit.

The Zhangs failed to oppose the motion.  Instead, they filed a “notice of stay” on appeal, and on July 14, 2014, apparently sent a letter to the Court in an attempt to argue that a stay is in effect.  The Zhangs filed no pleadings in opposition to the motion.  The Court has not considered this letter as it is in inappropriate ex parte communication to the Court.  In any event, there is neither a stay in effect nor a proper subject for appeal based on the Court’s earlier order.  Accordingly, as the Zhangs failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact, the motion for summary adjudication of the declaratory relief claim asserted in the 1-13-CV-239835 complaint is GRANTED.

The Huis also move for summary adjudication of the eleventh and twelfth causes of action in Zhangs’ fourth amended cross-complaint in the 1-09-CV-149951 action for inducing breach of contract and interference with prospective economic advantage, respectively.  The Huis present evidence demonstrating that the alleged conduct concerns communications relating to the defense and prosecution of litigation, and thus, the claims based on such conduct is barred by the litigation privilege.  Accordingly, the Huis meet their initial burden to demonstrate that the eleventh and twelfth causes of action in the 1-09-CV-149951 fourth amended cross-complaint lack merit as they are barred by the litigation privilege.

Again, the Zhangs failed to oppose the motion.  Thus, as the Zhangs failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact, the motion for summary adjudication of the eleventh and twelfth causes of action in the 1-09-CV-149951 complaint is also GRANTED.

The Huis shall prepare the order.