Case Number: KC079873 Hearing Date: March 26, 2018 Dept: J

Re: Yan Li, et al. v. April Lin, et al. (KC069873)

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Moving Parties: Defendants April Lin, Han International Group, Inc. dba Han Realty, Shigang Li, Jui Yuan Cheng and Moon Management Consulting, LLC

Respondents: Plaintiffs Yan Li and Mesarica Management, LLC

POS: Moving OK; Opposing OK

Plaintiff Yan Li (“Yan”) owns the property located at 20711 E. Mesarica Road in San Dimas (“subject property”) and manages same through Plaintiff Mesarica Management, LLC. On or about 4/5/16, Yan entered into a “Lease Listing Agreement—Exclusive Authorization to Lease or Rent” with Han International Group Inc. dba Han Realty (“Han”). Yan alleges that Han’s supervising broker, April Lin (“A. Lin”), represented to Yan that her friend Shigang Li (“S. Li”) was interested in leasing the subject property for himself and his son to use when they visited from overseas, and that S. Li was also looking to operate a consulting business on the subject property. When Yan objected to S. Li as a tenant for his lack of credit history in the United States, A. Lin promised she would also be a tenant on the lease. Yan contends that A. Lin, S. Lim Jui Yuan Cheng (“Cheng”) and Moon Management Consulting, LLC (“Moon”) failed to disclose their intent to operate short-term rentals and use the subject property to operate businesses for a profit, including social events such as parties and weddings. Yan alleges that the subject property was severely damaged during a 3/25/17 social event. The complaint, filed 12/12/17, asserts causes of action against Defendants A. Lin, Han, S. Li, Cheng, Moon and Does 1-10 for:

Fraud
Breach of Contract—Listing Agreement;
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Professional Negligence
Breach of Contract—Lease Agreement
Negligence

On 1/12/18, A. Lin, Han, S. Li, Cheng and Moon filed their cross-complaint, asserting causes of action therein against plaintiffs, Peizhen Lin, Lili Young and Does 1-10 for:

Fraud
Fraud and Deceit by Intentional Misrepresentation
Fraud and Deceit by Concealment and Nondisclosure of Known Facts
Fraud and Deceit by Negligent Misrepresentation
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Conversion
Equitable Indemnity

On 3/15/18, the court sustained plaintiff’s demurrer to A. Lin, et al.’s cross-complaint, without leave to amend. A Case Management Conference is set for 5/7/18.

Defendants April Lin, Han International Group, Inc. dba Han Realty, Shigang Li, Jui Yuan Cheng and Moon Management Consulting, LLC (“defendants”) move, per CCP § 438, for judgment on the pleadings as to the first through sixth causes of action in Plaintiffs Yan Li’s and Mesarica Management, LLC’s (“plaintiffs”) complaint.

MEET AND CONFER:

CCP § 439 provides, in pertinent 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…”

Counsel for defendants fails to demonstrate that he complied with CCP § 439, which became effective 1/1/18. The motion was filed 2/16/18. The court orders counsel to meaningfully meet and confer, in person or by telephone, prior to the hearing. If the parties are unable to resolve the issues on their own, the motion will be taken off calendar.