Preview
William L. Niu (SBN 18915 1) F LE
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM L. NIU, APLC SUPERIOR
I
coum 0F CALIFORNIA
18725 E. Gale Ave., Suite 228 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
0:an DIVISION
City 0f Industry, California 91748
Tel: 626-810—1 168
Fax: 626-737-2677 JAN 26 2023
Email: willg&)niulaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant HUI ZHOU, individually
and as Trustee for REDPLUM LIVING TRUST,
BwJIgmM ephanie Reed, Deputy
and Defendants SHAOREN ZHOU and
WRZZQ TROPICAL LAND LLC
SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
Case No.: CIV SB 2207057
11
LIGHTKING AMERICA TECHNOLOGY
(L.A.) LTD,
12 [Case Assigned for all Purposes t0 the Hon.
Brian S. McCarville, Dept. 8-30]
l3 Plaintiff,
vs.
DEFENDANTS HUI ZHOU, SHAOREN
14
ZHOU REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S
ZEMING QI, HUI ZHOU, an
an individual, OPPOSITION TO MOTION T0
15
individual, REDPLUM LIVING TRUST, a EXPUNGE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF
California living trust, SHAOREN ZHOU, an
ACTION (LIS PENDENS) AND FOR
16
LEOLAND INC., a California
MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE
individual, vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
AMOUNT OF $4,515
l7
corporation, WRZZQ TROPICAL LAND LLC. ‘-
kw;
a Nevada limited liability company, and DOES H
Expulgg Lis Pendens:
18 Motion t0
through 20, inclusive, Date: February 2, 2023 ‘
.
‘V
,
/
x
I9 Time: 8:30 a.m. \l A
A
Defendants.
Dept: S-30 ‘ .
J
,A
u
20 .
November 20, 2020 §
21
Action Filed:
Trial Date: None set.
22
ES AND THEIR
23 TO PLAINTIFF AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD AND ALL PARTI
24 ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
25 Defendants HUI ZHOU individually and as Trustee for REDPLUM LIVING TRUST (“H.
26 ZHOU”), SHAOREN ZHOU (“S. WRZZQ TROPICAL LAND LLC (“WRZZQ”)
ZHOU”) and
27 hereby submit their Reply to Plaintiff LIGHTKING AMERICA
TECHNOLOGY (L.A.) LTD’S
0f Action pendens) recorded
Opposition to Motion to Expunge Notice 0f Pendency
(lis
28 (“Plaintiff”)
1
FF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE
DEFENDANTS HUI ZHOU, SHAOREN ZHOU REPLY TO PLAINTI
OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS) AND FOR MONET
ARY SANCTIONS 1N THE AMOUNT OF $4,515
with the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office as instrument number 2022-0242256 0n or about
July 12, 2022, on the 3 real properties commonly known as 3411 Ashley Court, Chino Hills, CA
91709, 11539 Lancaster Way, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, and 10265 Indiana Court, Rancho
Cucamonga, CA 91730, and to impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff or anyone opposing this
motion for the sum 0f $4,515.00, as follows:
A. COURTS HAVE HELD THAT EQUITABLE LIEN AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON
REAL PROPERTY DOES NOT ALLEGE A VALID REAL PROPERTY CLAIM, AND
CANNOT ESTABLISH BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THE
PROBABLE VALIDITY OF THEIR CLAIM
Case law is clear. An action seeking the imposition 0f a constructive trust on real property
10 does not allege a valid real property claim within the meaning of the lis pendens statutes.
H On this issue 0f whether Plaintiff has alleged a valid real property claim, Plaintiff cited 2
12 cases in their opposition, both 0f which have since been rejected and disapproved.
l3 Plaintiff cited Okuda v. Superior Court (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 135, 192 Cal.Rptr. 388 and
14 Coppinger v. Superior Court (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 883, 185 Ca1.Rptr. 24, for the proposition that
15 an action seeking the imposition 0f a constructive trust 0n real property was an action affecting title
to real property within the meaning 0f the lis pendens statutes.
This holding in Okuda and Coppinger have since both been rej ected by all the courts. Urez
18 Corp. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1141, 1149, 235 Cal.Rptr. 837; Hunting World, Inc.
l9 v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 67, 71, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 923; Wardley Development Inc. v.
Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 391, 394, fn. 3, 262 Ca1.Rptr. 87; Elder v. Carlisle Ins. C0.
20
21 (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1313, 1320, fn. 8, 238 Cal.Rptr. 897.
22 The Hunting World court stated that “there have been a chorus 0f decisions disagreeing with
23 Coppinger and Okuda.” Hunting World, Ina, 22 Cal.App.4‘h at 71.
24 The Urez court held the following:
25 “We conclude that allegations of equitable remedies, even if colorable,
26 will not support a lis pendens if, ultimately, those allegations act only as a
27 collateral means t0 collect money damages. It must be borne in mind that
28 the true purpose of the lis pendens statute is to provide notice of pending
2
DEFENDANTS HUI ZHOU, SHAOREN ZHOU REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE
OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LlS PENDENS) AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,5 5 l
Preview
William L. Niu (SBN 18915 1) F LE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM L. NIU, APLC SUPERIOR I coum 0F CALIFORNIA 18725 E. Gale Ave., Suite 228 COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO 0:an DIVISION City 0f Industry, California 91748 Tel: 626-810—1 168 Fax: 626-737-2677 JAN 26 2023 Email: willg&)niulaw.com Attorneys for Defendant HUI ZHOU, individually and as Trustee for REDPLUM LIVING TRUST, BwJIgmM ephanie Reed, Deputy and Defendants SHAOREN ZHOU and WRZZQ TROPICAL LAND LLC SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 Case No.: CIV SB 2207057 11 LIGHTKING AMERICA TECHNOLOGY (L.A.) LTD, 12 [Case Assigned for all Purposes t0 the Hon. Brian S. McCarville, Dept. 8-30] l3 Plaintiff, vs. DEFENDANTS HUI ZHOU, SHAOREN 14 ZHOU REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S ZEMING QI, HUI ZHOU, an an individual, OPPOSITION TO MOTION T0 15 individual, REDPLUM LIVING TRUST, a EXPUNGE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF California living trust, SHAOREN ZHOU, an ACTION (LIS PENDENS) AND FOR 16 LEOLAND INC., a California MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE individual, vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv AMOUNT OF $4,515 l7 corporation, WRZZQ TROPICAL LAND LLC. ‘- kw; a Nevada limited liability company, and DOES H Expulgg Lis Pendens: 18 Motion t0 through 20, inclusive, Date: February 2, 2023 ‘ . ‘V , / x I9 Time: 8:30 a.m. \l A A Defendants. Dept: S-30 ‘ . J ,A u 20 . November 20, 2020 § 21 Action Filed: Trial Date: None set. 22 ES AND THEIR 23 TO PLAINTIFF AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD AND ALL PARTI 24 ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: 25 Defendants HUI ZHOU individually and as Trustee for REDPLUM LIVING TRUST (“H. 26 ZHOU”), SHAOREN ZHOU (“S. WRZZQ TROPICAL LAND LLC (“WRZZQ”) ZHOU”) and 27 hereby submit their Reply to Plaintiff LIGHTKING AMERICA TECHNOLOGY (L.A.) LTD’S 0f Action pendens) recorded Opposition to Motion to Expunge Notice 0f Pendency (lis 28 (“Plaintiff”) 1 FF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE DEFENDANTS HUI ZHOU, SHAOREN ZHOU REPLY TO PLAINTI OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LIS PENDENS) AND FOR MONET ARY SANCTIONS 1N THE AMOUNT OF $4,515 with the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office as instrument number 2022-0242256 0n or about July 12, 2022, on the 3 real properties commonly known as 3411 Ashley Court, Chino Hills, CA 91709, 11539 Lancaster Way, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, and 10265 Indiana Court, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, and to impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiff or anyone opposing this motion for the sum 0f $4,515.00, as follows: A. COURTS HAVE HELD THAT EQUITABLE LIEN AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY DOES NOT ALLEGE A VALID REAL PROPERTY CLAIM, AND CANNOT ESTABLISH BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THE PROBABLE VALIDITY OF THEIR CLAIM Case law is clear. An action seeking the imposition 0f a constructive trust on real property 10 does not allege a valid real property claim within the meaning of the lis pendens statutes. H On this issue 0f whether Plaintiff has alleged a valid real property claim, Plaintiff cited 2 12 cases in their opposition, both 0f which have since been rejected and disapproved. l3 Plaintiff cited Okuda v. Superior Court (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 135, 192 Cal.Rptr. 388 and 14 Coppinger v. Superior Court (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 883, 185 Ca1.Rptr. 24, for the proposition that 15 an action seeking the imposition 0f a constructive trust 0n real property was an action affecting title to real property within the meaning 0f the lis pendens statutes. This holding in Okuda and Coppinger have since both been rej ected by all the courts. Urez 18 Corp. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1141, 1149, 235 Cal.Rptr. 837; Hunting World, Inc. l9 v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 67, 71, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 923; Wardley Development Inc. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 391, 394, fn. 3, 262 Ca1.Rptr. 87; Elder v. Carlisle Ins. C0. 20 21 (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1313, 1320, fn. 8, 238 Cal.Rptr. 897. 22 The Hunting World court stated that “there have been a chorus 0f decisions disagreeing with 23 Coppinger and Okuda.” Hunting World, Ina, 22 Cal.App.4‘h at 71. 24 The Urez court held the following: 25 “We conclude that allegations of equitable remedies, even if colorable, 26 will not support a lis pendens if, ultimately, those allegations act only as a 27 collateral means t0 collect money damages. It must be borne in mind that 28 the true purpose of the lis pendens statute is to provide notice of pending 2 DEFENDANTS HUI ZHOU, SHAOREN ZHOU REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION (LlS PENDENS) AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,5 5 l