RUE-ELL ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs SUN, et al.

24CV077609: RUE-ELL ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs SUN, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Rue-Ell Enterprises' Demurrer to First Amended Cross-Complaint; filed by Rue-Ell Enterprises, Inc., a California Corporation (Cross- Defendant) CRS# 124857961395 in Department 15

Tentative Ruling - 08/17/2026 Peter Borkon

The Demurrer filed by Rue-Ell Enterprises, Inc., a California Corporation on 06/30/2026 is Sustained without Leave to Amend.

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Rue-Ell Enterprises, Inc. (“Rue-ell”) demurs to the First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) filed by Yumei Cui (“Cui”). The FACC asserts causes of action for “resulting trust” against Cross-Defendants Rue-ell and Francis Sun, and for equitable indemnity/contribution against Sun. This demurrer addresses only the first cross-claim for resulting trust. For the reasons discussed below, Rue-ell’s demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

The FACC alleges that Cui alone furnished the funds to purchase the real property at issue in this case, 5454 Fernhoff Road (“Fernhoff property”), and title was placed in the name of Cui’s daughter, Defendant Isabella Sun aka Qiwen Bao (“Sun”), for convenience while Cui was abroad. Cui alleges that a resulting trust arose in Cui’s favor, such that the 2021 transfer of title from Sun to Cui was not a transfer of a debtor’s asset. (FACC ¶¶ 21-26.)

On 6/25/2026, the Court granted summary adjudication on Rue-ell’s cause of action against Cui for fraudulent transfer of the Fernhoff property in violation of Civil Code section 3439.05. In opposition to the motion, Cui asserted the same resulting trust theory alleged in the FACC. Cui cited no legal authority or admissible evidence to support the existence of a resulting trust for the Fernhoff property. Consequently, the Court found that Rue-ell was entitled to summary adjudication on that issue.

The Court may take judicial notice of its summary adjudication order. (Evid. Code § 452(d).) Court records that are subject to judicial notice provide a ground for demurrer. (CCP § 430.30; see also Britz, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 177, 180 [“When court records which the court may judicially notice provide ground for objection to a complaint, a demurrer on that ground is proper.”].)

The Court’s summary adjudication order is binding on Cui and therefore precludes Cui from relitigating the same resulting trust theory as a cross-claim. “Summary adjudication of a cause of action ‘is a judicial determination that the issue is not subject to further controversy.’” (Pinter- Brown v. Regents of Univ. of California (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 55, 99.) “Summary adjudication of an issue is binding.” (Ibid.) “Following a grant of summary adjudication in a defendant's favor, the cause of action is deemed ‘established’ and the parties may not relitigate the issue.” (Ibid.)

Because the resulting trust theory has been conclusively determined in favor of Rue-ell and against Cui, Cui cannot state a valid claim for resulting trust in the FACC. 24CV077609: RUE-ELL ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs SUN, et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Rue-Ell Enterprises' Demurrer to First Amended Cross-Complaint; filed by Rue-Ell Enterprises, Inc., a California Corporation (Cross- Defendant) CRS# 124857961395 in Department 15

Cui did not oppose this demurrer or demonstrate any potential amendment that could cure the binding nature of the summary adjudication order. Accordingly, the demurrer to the first cause of action in the FACC for resulting trust is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Rue-ell is DISMISSED from the First Amended Cross-Complaint.

If this tentative ruling is contested, the Court will hear argument at 9:30 a.m. on August 24, 2026.