Case Number: BC519580 Hearing Date: June 12, 2014 Dept: 73

Department 73
Rafael A. Ongkeko, Judge presiding

CHO, et al.,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
TAO, et al.,
Defendant(s).

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

Case No.: BC519580

Hearing Date: 6/12/14

[TENTATIVE] RULINGS RE:
Cross-defendants’ demurrer to second amended cross-complaint; and motion to strike

Counsel for cross-complainants: Jie Lian (Ideal, etc.)
Counsel for cross-defendants: Steve Luan

Cross-defendants’ request for judicial notice (RJN, filed 3/28/14) is denied. Cross-defendants’ RJN and cross-complainants’ opposition to the demurrer (filed 5/29/14) are in violation of Calif. Rule of Court (CRC) rule 3.1110(f) (hard-tabbing of exhibits). Cross-defendants’ RJN (220 pages of deposition transcript) has violated CRC rule 3.1116, particularly subdivisions (b) and (c) (attach only relevant deposition pages and highlight relevant testimony). The court gives notice and sets an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed against counsel for cross-complainants Jie Lian and/or counsel for cross-defendants Steve Luan pursuant to CRC 2.30 on 10/30/14 at 8:30 a.m. (the final status conference). Any papers in support or in opposition shall be filed and served 5 court days before the FSC.

Matter #1: Demurrer of all cross-defendants (filed 3/28/14) to the second amended cross-complaint:

First, second, third, fourth causes of action. Overruled based on the court’s ruling issued on 3/7/14. This is an unnecessary pleading on the part of moving party.

Fifth cause of action for negligence: This negligent hiring, managing, etc. of Liu still lacks the allegation that the alleged employers knew or should have known of particular risks involving Liu’s work. Doe v. Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1054, 1055. The demurrer to the fifth cause of action is sustained with 10 days’ leave to amend.

Sixth cause of action for fraudulent transfer: There are insufficient allegations to support any indebtedness or debtor-creditor relationship, much less the remaining elements of this cause of action. The demurrer to the seventh cause of action is sustained with 10 days’ leave to amend.

Cross-complainant has attached a proposed third amended complaint. Both counsel are admonished and ordered to meet and confer in the future with a view toward stipulating to such filing to avoid unnecessary court intervention. While it is premature to rule on the proposed third amended cross-complaint, there should be no further amendments to the first through fourth causes of action.

The court notes a third amended cross-complaint will likely be cross-complainants’ final opportunity granted with leave to amend as to the fifth and sixth causes of action. Cross-complainants are granted leave either to file and serve a writing by 6/23/14 indicating no intent to amend the second amended cross-complaint or to file and serve a third amended cross-complaint by that date. If cross-complainants elect the latter, a red-line copy of the amended complaint showing the changes from the previous cross-complaint is to be concurrently provided to cross-defendants. If cross-defendants intend to file a demurrer to the second amended cross-complaint, cross-defendants must lodge directly in Dept. 73 the red-line copy of the amended cross-complaint with their demurrer

Matter #2:
Motion to strike by cross-defendants (filed 3/28/14): Denied as the grounds stated are mere repetitions of the demurrer and not pursuant to CCP 436. The motion is rendered moot by granting cross-complainant leave to file a third amended cross-complaint.

Unless waived, notice of ruling by moving parties.