Wang vs. Liu

As to negligent infliction of emotional distress, the SAC fails to allege any facts showing any duty to plaintiff on defendants’ part. (Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1072 [negligent causing of emotional distress is not an independent tort, but is instead the tort of negligence]; Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583, 588 [“[t]he traditional elements of duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages apply”]; Wooden v. Raveling (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1038 [the duty must be one “assumed by the defendant or imposed on the defendant as a matter of law, or that arises out of a relationship between the two”].)

Case Management Conference continued to November 13, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department C44.

Clerk to give notice.

10 Wang vs. Liu

2023-01321234 Motion for Terminating Sanctions

Continued to CM02. See minute order dated 5/27/26.

11 Yang vs. TBG Construction & Flooring Company, Inc.

2024-01385711 Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment:

No tentative. 12 Yu vs. JJC & CO. LLC

2026-01547713 Motion to Compel Arbitration

Defendants JJC & CO. LLC, Jifeng Nan and Zhuofan Duan’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED.

“[W]hen a petition to compel arbitration is filed and accompanied by prima facie evidence of a written agreement to arbitrate the controversy, the court itself must determine whether the agreement exists and, if any defense to its enforcement is raised, whether it is enforceable.” (Mitri v. Arnel Management Co. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1169; (Code Civ. Proc, § 1281.2.) “California contract law applies to determine whether the parties formed a valid agreement to arbitrate.” (Id. at 1170.)

“In determining the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, the trial court must employ a three-step burden shifting process. The party seeking to compel arbitration bears an initial burden to show