Zeng v. Jiang CA2/3

Filed 9/9/22 Zeng v. Jiang CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE ANPING ZENG, B305886 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC583483) v. FENG JIANG, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stuart M. Rice, Judge. Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with directions. Anglin Flewelling & Rasmussen, Robert A. Bailey and Yaw-Jiun (Gene) Wu for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Barry G. Florence and Barry G. Florence for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________ Plaintiff and respondent Anping Zeng sued her former husband, defendant and appellant Feng Jiang, claiming that their divorce agreement allocated to her an investment they had made during their marriage. Jiang responded to the lawsuit by moving to dismiss it based on forum non conveniens, arguing that he and Zeng were Chinese nationals residing in China. The trial court denied that motion, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial, after which the trial court found for Zeng. Jiang contends on appeal that the trial court erred by denying his forum non conveniens motion, the trial court erroneously admitted at trial an exhibit concerning mediation, there was insufficient evidence he breached the divorce agreement, and awards of prejudgment interest and attorney fees should be reversed. We agree that the prejudgment interest award must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings but reject Jiang’s remaining contentions. BACKGROUND I. The complaint Zeng and Jiang were married in China and divorced there in 2011. During their marriage, Zeng and Jiang invested $500,000 in the Los Angeles Film Regional Center (LAFRC) to secure United States green cards. After their divorce, Zeng and Jiang disputed who was entitled to return of the LAFRC investment. So, in May 2015, Zeng filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court for declaratory relief, naming LAFRC and Jiang as defendants. The complaint alleged that Zeng and Jiang had entered into a divorce agreement in China providing that the $500,000 and stock rights in LAFRC belonged to Zeng. Because LAFRC was poised to disburse the funds to Jiang, Zeng asked for declaratory relief. 2 In response to the complaint, LAFRC interpleaded the funds, and the trial court entered an order dismissing LAFRC from the case in November 2016. Jiang still had not been served with the complaint as of July 2015. In response to an order to show cause regarding service, Zeng explained that Jiang resided in China, so it was necessary to serve him through the Hague Convention process, and she thought he was evading service. Nonetheless, Jiang was finally served on August 31, 2016 at an address in …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals