Case Number: KC068521 Hearing Date: February 07, 2019 Dept: J

______________________________________________________________________________

Defendants Castleton Law Group’s, May Liou’s and Lawrence Liu’s MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Responding Party: Plaintiff, Xue Xin Liu

Tentative Ruling

Defendants Castleton Law Group’s, May Liou and Lawrence Liu’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is CONTINUED to (date to be determined at February 7, 2019 hearing date).

Background

Plaintiff Xue Xin Liu (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he learned in mid-2015 that Defendant Yuxin An (“An”) stole tens of millions of dollars of real estate from him, his companies, and his brother. Plaintiff sued An in case styled Liu v. An, Case No. EC064414 (“Underlying Action”). Plaintiff claims that An agreed, during settlement negotiations in the Underlying Action, that if Plaintiff would place two commercial properties owned by Plaintiff’s corporation, CBA, Inc. (“CBA”) in trust for their two daughters, An would return the money that she had misappropriated. Plaintiff alleges that in/about June 2015, An took Plaintiff to Defendants Lawrence Liu (“Liu”), May F. Liou (“Liou”) and Castleton Law Group, APC (“Castleton”) to have the trust prepared. Plaintiff alleges that, unbeknownst to him, Liu/Liou/Castleton had previously prepared a trust instrument involving a residential property that An had allegedly misappropriated from Plaintiff and had provided legal advice to An on various legal matters. Plaintiff also alleges that An had, without his knowledge, obtained fraudulent title to the commercial properties by filing false Statements of Information for CBA with the California Secretary of State and then granted the properties to herself. Plaintiff alleges that, despite being aware of Plaintiff’s contention that An did not own the two commercial properties, Liu/Liou/Castleton drafted the trust instrument which contained a recital that (1) An was the owner of the properties and that (2) Plaintiff had “gifted” the properties to her. Plaintiff alleges that he cannot read or speak English. Plaintiff claims that Liu/Liou/Castleton refused to provide Plaintiff with a written translation of the trust, “slipped in” a disclaimer document for him to sign and represented An in the Underlying Action after An refused to return the money. Liu/Liou/Castleton are also representing An in the family law action plaintiff filed against her.

On June 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants An, Liu and Castleton (collectively, “Defendants”) for:

Legal Malpractice
Breach of Fiduciary Duties
Fraud

On May 15, 2018, the court granted Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings and placed the action on special status.[1] Trial is set for July 16, 2019.

Discussion

Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings, per CCP § 438, as to Plaintiffs’ entire complaint and all causes of action therein.

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will be CONTINUED to ___________________. CCP §§ 128 and 439[2]. CCP § 439 was added January 1, 2018, and effective for any and all motions for judgment on the pleadings made pursuant to CCP § 438,

[1] The stay was impliedly lifted at the November 16, 2018 Status Conference re: Appeal, as the remittitur has been issued on October 9, 2018. The trial date was set at the November 16, 2018 Status Conference re: Appeal.

[2] This provision reads, in relevant part, as follows: “(a) Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings. If an amended pleading is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings against the amended pleading.

(1) As part of the meet and confer process, the moving party shall identify all of the specific allegations that it believes are subject to judgment and identify with legal support the basis of the claims. The party who filed the pleading shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is not subject to judgment, or, in the alternative, how the pleading could be amended to cure any claims it is subject to judgment.

(2) The parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. If the parties are unable to meet and confer by that time, the moving party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings, by filing and serving, on or before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be filed, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer. The 30-day extension shall commence from the date the motion for judgment on the pleadings was previously filed, and the moving party shall not be subject to default during the period of the extension. Any further extensions shall be obtained by court order upon a showing of good cause.

(3) The moving party shall file and serve with the motion for judgment on the pleadings a declaration stating either of the following:

(A) The means by which the moving party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the claims raised by the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

(B) That the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the moving party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith…”

[1] The stay was impliedly lifted at the November 16, 2018 Status Conference re: Appeal, as the remittitur has been issued on October 9, 2018. The trial date was set at the November 16, 2018 Status Conference re: Appeal.

[1] This provision reads, in relevant part, as follows: “(a) Before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion for judgment on the pleadings. If an amended pleading is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings against the amended pleading.

(1) As part of the meet and confer process, the moving party shall identify all of the specific allegations that it believes are subject to judgment and identify with legal support the basis of the claims. The party who filed the pleading shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is not subject to judgment, or, in the alternative, how the pleading could be amended to cure any claims it is subject to judgment.

(2) The parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings is filed. If the parties are unable to meet and confer by that time, the moving party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings, by filing and serving, on or before the date a motion for judgment on the pleadings must be filed, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer. The 30-day extension shall commence from the date the motion for judgment on the pleadings was previously filed, and the moving party shall not be subject to default during the period of the extension. Any further extensions shall be obtained by court order upon a showing of good cause.

(3) The moving party shall file and serve with the motion for judgment on the pleadings a declaration stating either of the following:

(A) The means by which the moving party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the claims raised by the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

(B) That the party who filed the pleading subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the moving party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith…”