Pacific Department Stores Co. v. Chang CA2/2

Filed 7/3/24 Pacific Department Stores Co. v. Chang CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

PACIFIC DEPARTMENT B328364 STORES CO. LTD., (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 20STCV49851)

v.

CHI CHENG CHANG et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Maurice A. Leiter, Judge. Affirmed.

WHGC and Michael G. York for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Husch Blackwell, Jules S. Zeman, Kevin Khachatryan, Paul A. Calfo and Jamie Steiner for Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff and appellant Pacific Department Stores, Co. Ltd. (appellant) appeals the order granting the motion of defendants and respondents Chi Cheng Chang and Shih En Chang (respondents) to stay the action based on forum non conveniens. Appellant also challenges the denial of its ex parte application to shorten time on its motion for reconsideration. We find no error and affirm the orders.

BACKGROUND Chi Cheng Chang was a former executive director for appellant. Shih En Chang was a former employee. Appellant filed this action, claiming Chi Cheng Chang and Shih En Chang misappropriated money. Respondents were served with the summons and complaint in Taiwan. Respondents filed a motion to quash service of summons, arguing they were not properly served and lacked sufficient minimum contacts with the California forum. Initially the trial court found respondents were properly served but continued the proceeding to allow appellant to conduct discovery regarding the issue of minimum contacts with the forum. The trial court subsequently found sufficient minimum contacts and denied respondents’ motion to quash. Respondents then filed a motion to dismiss or stay the action based on forum non conveniens, arguing Taiwan was the proper forum. The trial court granted the motion and stayed the action. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the stay; however, the hearing on the matter was set after the deadline to appeal the stay. Appellant then filed an ex parte application to advance the hearing. The application was denied.