Jiang v. Tseng CA1/5

California Court of Appeal Jan 27, 2023 No. A164882Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that adding an individual as a judgment debtor to a default judgment against a corporation violates due process when there is no substantial evidence that the individual controlled the underlying litigation.

Issues

Whether the trial court violated the appellant's due process rights by adding him as a judgment debtor to a default judgment against a corporation.
Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the appellant controlled the underlying litigation.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We agree with Tseng that his due process rights were violated by the court’s order adding him as a judgment debtor.”

“There is no substantial evidence to support the court’s finding that he controlled the litigation against England Rose.”

“In fact, the record shows only that there was no defense. England Rose filed an answer but the judgment resulted from its default.”

Filed 1/27/23 Jiang v. Tseng CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

ZHI CAI JIANG, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A164882 WEI CHIEH TSENG, Defendant and Appellant. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG16807600)

Wei Chieh Tseng appeals from an order adding him as a judgment debtor to a default judgment previously entered against a corporation. We agree with Tseng that the amended judgment violates his due process rights and is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we reverse.

BACKGROUND A. Zhi Cai Jiang was employed by a restaurant known as England Rose Garden beginning in late 2013. Jiang’s employment ended, in April 2015, when he was punched by a coworker and told by Tseng not to call police.

Almost a year later, Jiang filed a lawsuit against England Rose House, Inc. (England Rose), which included causes of action for financial elder abuse, wrongful termination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unfair competition (Bus. &

Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), as well as claims for violations of Labor Code provisions that require accurate record keeping (Lab. Code, § 226), overtime pay (id., § 510, subd. (a)), and rest periods (id., § 226.7).

Initially, England Rose was represented by counsel and answered Jiang’s complaint. However, England Rose later exhausted its assets, its counsel withdrew, and it became unrepresented. England Rose’s answer was stricken, its default was entered, and, in September 2019, the trial court entered judgment for Jiang, in the amount of $245,918, against England Rose. (See Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 724, 729-730 [corporation can only appear through counsel].)

Jiang v. Tseng CA1/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION A.

AI Brief