Jiang v. Xu, et al.
Defendant David Gao’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.
I. Background
On April 28, 2017, Plaintiff Yvonne Jiang (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; and (3) fraud against Defendants Helen Xu, Wenmei Yu and David Gao (“Gao”). On August 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) that purported to name Coldwell Banker George Realty (“Coldwell”), Robert Clark (“Clark”), and Austin Wong (“Wong”) as new defendants. The FAC removed the first cause of action, and alleged a second cause of action for fraud and deceit against Defendants Wong, Xu, and Gao. It also alleged a third cause of action for constructive fraud against Defendants Clark and Coldwell.
On November 5, 2017, the Court dismissed this action with prejudice against Xu because it had previously sustained Xu’s demurrer to the Complaint without leave to amend. On December 20, 2018, an amended judgment of dismissal was entered in Xu’s favor and against Plaintiff.
On
Type
CONTRACTUAL FRAUD (Limited Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Jiang v. Xu, et al.
Defendant David Gao’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.
I. Background
On April 28, 2017, Plaintiff Yvonne Jiang (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; and (3) fraud against Defendants Helen Xu, Wenmei Yu and David Gao (“Gao”). On August 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) that purported to name Coldwell Banker George Realty (“Coldwell”), Robert Clark (“Clark”), and Austin Wong (“Wong”) as new defendants. The FAC removed the first cause of action, and alleged a second cause of action for fraud and deceit against Defendants Wong, Xu, and Gao. It also alleged a third cause of action for constructive fraud against Defendants Clark and Coldwell.
On November 5, 2017, the Court dismissed this action with prejudice against Xu because it had previously sustained Xu’s demurrer to the Complaint without leave to amend. On December 20, 2018, an amended judgment of dismissal was entered in Xu’s favor and against Plaintiff.
On