Yeung v. Yong CA2/1

Filed 1/27/15 Yeung v. Yong CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

YEUNG SZE YEUNG, B251726

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC496419) v.

MEI LIN YONG et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Soussan G. Bruguera, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part. Tantalo & Adler, Michael S. Adler and Joel M. Tantalo for Defendants and Appellants. Ernest J. Bartlett for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________________________

Plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify defendants’ attorneys for communicating with plaintiff in violation of Rule 2-100(A) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and in that motion, requested that his signature be voided on certain documents and that “defendants and their former counsel are admonished not to have further contact with plaintiff.” The court granted those requests but, in addition, the court on its own voided plaintiff’s signature on other documents that were not part of the noticed motion. Appellants do not challenge counsel’s disqualification or the voiding of documents prepared by counsel. Rather, they challenge the order voiding signatures on documents not noticed and the no contact order. We reverse the order insofar as it invalidates documents not included in the motion and reverse the order’s no-contact provision. We affirm the order in all other respects. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW The underlying action is a dispute among family members over the ownership of a corporation called Monryheng, Inc. which own real property in California. Plaintiff Yeung Sze Yeung, a resident of Hong Kong, claims that he owns 100 percent of the stock in Monryheng and is its president. Yeung brought an action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court under Corporations Code section 709 to determine the validity of the election or appointment of the directors of the corporation. At all times plaintiff has been represented by attorney Ernest J. Bartlett. The defendants are Mei Lin Yong, plaintiff’s cousin by marriage, who claims she is the president of the corporation, Andrew Lee, her son-in-law, and the corporation. Prior to his death, Mei Lin, Yong’s husband, operated the corporation. Defendants, represented by the law firm of Alexander and Yong, filed an answer to Yeung’s complaint. In January 2013, defendants Yong and Lee traveled to Hong Kong and met with plaintiff Yeung. They brought with them three documents prepared by their attorneys: (1) a Judicial Council Substitution of Attorneys form, substituting Yeung in propria persona for his attorney, Bartlett; (2) a Judicial Council Request for Dismissal form