Tianjin Weinada Internat. Trading Co. v. Tianjin Tianwu Internat. Trade Development Co. CA4/3

Filed 2/10/21 Tianjin Weinada Internat. Trading Co. v. Tianjin Tianwu Internat. Trade Development Co. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

TIANJIN WEINADA INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO., LTD., G057707

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 30-2014-00727077 30-2016-00861293 & v. 30-2016-00861338)

TIANJIN TIANWU INTERNATIONAL OPINION TRADE DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Glenn R. Salter, Judge. Reversed. DeHeng Chen, Dean T. Cho; DeHeng Law Offices and Kyle A. Hampton, for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of William L. Niu, William L. Niu; Maynard Cooper & Gale, Richard C. Macias, Judy Man-Ling Lam; Esner, Chang & Boyer, Stuart B. Esner, Andrew N. Chang and Kevin K. Nguyen, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Tianjin Tianwu International Trade Development Company (Tianwu) appeals from a judgment in favor of respondent Tianjin Weinada International Trading Company (Weinada), quieting title and imposing a constructive trust on a piece of real property located on Trotter Lane in Yorba Linda (Trotter Property). Tianwu argues the trial court erred in granting Weinada relief on the basis Tianwu was on constructive notice of a lis pendens recorded in another action. As discussed further below, we agree with Tianwu’s contention that Weinada failed to show at trial it was entitled to relief on its quiet title and constructive trust claims. We further conclude Weinada’s interest in the Trotter property cannot be adjudicated because no judgment was entered in the other action. Accordingly, we reverse. I 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Tianwu and Weinada are in the business of importing vehicles to China. In August 2013, Tianwu paid Pei Yi Sun over $2 million dollars for 33 luxury cars, which Sun never delivered to Tianwu. In January 2014, Weinada paid over $2 million to Yang Wang and his company Pinland, Inc., for 29 luxury cars, which Wang and Pinland never delivered to Weinada. Weinada later discovered Wang and Pinland had used the money to purchase the Trotter Property. In April 2014, Weinada sued Wang and Pinland for failing to deliver the cars (Breach of Contract Action), and recorded a lis pendens against the Trotter Property. In May 2014, Wang and Pinland fraudulently transferred the Trotter Property to Sun. In February 2015, the superior court expunged the lis pendens because of deficiencies in Weinada’s service of process.