Wen v. Yao CA2/8

Filed 11/2/15 Wen v. Yao CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JIANG CUI WEN, B255846

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC456268) v.

YUBIN YAO et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael Johnson, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Steven P. Chang, Steven P. Chang and James A. Kim, for Plaintiff and Appellant, Jiang Cui Wen.

Plotkin Marutani & Kaufman, Jay J. Plotkin and Nancy O. Marutani for Defendant and Respondent Min Gao.

Schiada & Caballero and John H. Caballero for Defendant and Respondent Yubin Yao.

__________________________

Jiang Cui Wen appeals from the summary judgments entered for defendants Yubin Yao and Min Gao in Jiang’s action alleging that they fraudulently concealed from him or transferred assets belonging to the judgment debtors in Jiang’s earlier action against other parties. We affirm because the appellate record Jiang provided omits several key documents, most notably his own opposition to the summary judgment motions.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In October 2010 Jiang Cui Wen won a judgment of more than $2.8 million against Zhong Xiao Zhao and Yuki Mochida arising from their misuse of funds that Jiang authorized them to use on his behalf.1 The present action arose from Jiang’s claim that Yubin Yao, Min Gao, Sino-Sun Group, Inc., and Fresh Trading, Inc. were helping Zhao and Mochida conceal assets and funds in order to prevent Jiang from enforcing his 2010 judgment. Although the complaint is not in the record, the parties stipulated that Jiang’s action was limited to a cause of action for violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (Civ. Code, § 3439, et seq.), and to relief available in a creditor’s action (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 708.210 – 708. 290). Counsel for Jiang later agreed that the relevant time frame for these alleged transfers was from 2002 through 2005. In December 2013 Gao, Yao, Sino-Sun Group, and Fresh Trading all moved for summary judgment. Jiang countered with his own summary judgment motion. On February 28, 2014, the trial court denied the summary judgment motions of plaintiff Jiang and defendants Sino-Sun Group and Fresh Trading, but granted the summary judgment motions of individual defendants Gao and Yao. The trial court found that Jiang’s opposition raised no triable issues of fact to counter Yao’s and Gao’s evidence that they did not receive or otherwise take part in any fraudulent asset transfers.