Beijing Da De Chao Rui Commerce etc. v. Tao Yun Capital CA2/8

Filed 9/13/24 Beijing Da De Chao Rui Commerce etc. v. Tao Yun Capital CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

BEIJING DA DE CHAO RUI B327159 COMMERCE AND TRADE CO., LTD. et al., Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. 21STCV30449 v. TAO YUN CAPITAL CO., LTD., Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Richard J. Fruin, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Van Etten Sipprelle and Keith A. Sipprelle for Plaintiffs and Appellants. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent. ___________________________________________

This appeal arises from an action filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1718, subdivision (a) for recognition of several purported judgments from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) against defendant Tao Yun Capital Co., Ltd. We affirm the trial court’s order quashing service of process because plaintiffs failed below, and fail here, to establish the existence of property owned by defendant in California. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs obtained what they refer to as seven “consent judgments” against defendant in the PRC. Before the trial court, defendant characterized these differently, calling them “Civil Mediation Statements.” Each offered declarations concerning the effect of PRC law in support of their respective characterizations. We will refer to the documents as “consent judgments” for convenience only. In 2021, plaintiffs filed in the trial court their complaint for recognition of the consent judgments against defendant, three other PRC corporations, and a PRC individual. This appeal pertains only to defendant, so we disregard the other defendants below in our recitation of the facts. In response to the complaint, defendant filed a motion to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction. In support of its motion, defendant argued its contacts with California did not establish jurisdiction under a traditional minimum contacts personal jurisdiction analysis. In opposition, plaintiffs argued the traditional jurisdictional analysis was inapplicable because the proceeding was only to recognize a foreign-country money judgment under California’s enactment of the Uniform Foreign-Country Judgments Recognition Act (UFCMJRA; Code Civ. Proc.,