BuildSimHub Inc. v. Beijing Jianyi Investment Development Co. Ltd.
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-09098
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In BuildSimHub v. Beijing Jianyi, Judge Davila denied attachment and striking motions, granted alternative service and counsel withdrawal, and denied lis pendens relief as moot.
BuildSimHub Inc.’s requests for pre-judgment property attachment, striking of Lanhai Su’s opposition, and alternative service were affected. Lanhai Su’s lis pendens motion and request for attorney fees and costs were denied or denied as moot. Defense counsel was permitted to withdraw subject to conditions, and the Jianyi defendants could be served through their U.S.-based counsel.
What happened
BuildSimHub Inc. sued Beijing Jianyi Investment Development (Group) Co. Ltd. and others, alleging that defendants used its cloud-based construction management platform without paying. The claims included breach of contract, quantum meruit, and violations of California’s unfair-competition and false-advertising laws.
The court considered five motions. It denied BuildSimHub’s request to seize Lanhai Su’s property before judgment because BuildSimHub did not show that Su’s assets were likely to be dissipated. It also denied BuildSimHub’s motion to strike Su’s opposition. The court denied Su’s request to remove the notice affecting three properties as moot because an amended complaint added a property-related fraudulent-transfer claim, and it denied her request for attorney fees and costs.
Judge Davila granted defense counsel’s request to withdraw, subject to conditions concerning service and representation, and granted BuildSimHub permission to serve two Jianyi defendants through their U.S.-based counsel. The court also continued the case-management conference to April 14, 2022.
The detailed version
- BuildSimHub Inc. v. Beijing Jianyi Investment Development Co. Ltd. · No. 5:20-cv-09098
- Edward Davila
- Feb. 25, 2022
Background
BuildSimHub Inc. filed the action on December 16, 2020. It alleged that it entered a written Software as a Service Agreement with Jianyi California Corporation in March 2019 for use of BuildSimHub’s cloud-based construction-management platform. BuildSimHub further alleged that other defendants later used the platform with its knowledge or authorization but did not pay for the services. The complaint asserted breach of contract, quantum meruit, and violations of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 and following.
The order addressed five motions: BuildSimHub’s motion for a writ of attachment, BuildSimHub’s motion to strike Defendant Lanhai Su’s response, Su’s motion to expunge a lis pendens, defense counsel’s motion to withdraw, and BuildSimHub’s motion for alternative service of process.
Writ of Attachment
A writ of attachment is a court order allowing a plaintiff to have specified property seized before judgment and held for possible enforcement of a later judgment. BuildSimHub sought to attach all money, securities, personal property, and real property held by Su.
Applying California law, the court explained that BuildSimHub had to establish each requirement for attachment by a preponderance of the evidence, including that the attachment was not sought for a purpose other than recovering on the claim and that the defendant’s assets were likely to be dissipated before judgment. The court found that BuildSimHub’s supporting declaration did not address Su’s assets or provide facts showing that she had concealed assets or intended to do so. The court also noted that BuildSimHub filed the application months after starting the case and had not shown that Su’s financial position had changed. The court therefore denied BuildSimHub’s motion for a writ of attachment.
Motion to Strike
BuildSimHub moved to strike Su’s response to the attachment application. The court found that Su’s opposition was neither spurious nor frivolous and contained valid legal arguments addressing the applicable standards. The court therefore denied BuildSimHub’s motion to strike.
Lis Pendens
A lis pendens is a recorded notice that a lawsuit may affect title to or possession of identified real property. BuildSimHub recorded a lis pendens affecting three properties owned by Su. Su argued that the notice should be removed because the claims in the first amended complaint did not concern real property and requested $4,300 in attorney fees and costs.
The court stated that the first amended complaint, filed after Su’s motion, added a fraudulent-transfer claim addressing the three properties. Because the amended complaint asserted property claims related to those properties, the court denied as moot Su’s motion to expunge the lis pendens. The court also denied defense counsel’s request for attorney fees and costs.
Defense Counsel’s Withdrawal
The court granted defense counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to three conditions. First, the two Jianyi defendants had to authorize counsel to accept alternative service before counsel withdrew. Second, the Dahyee Law Group had to accept service of papers for forwarding to all five defendants until new counsel was secured. Third, the court advised the four corporate defendants that they had 30 days after counsel’s withdrawal to obtain new counsel. The court stated that, if they failed to do so, BuildSimHub could pursue default judgment against them.
Alternative Service
BuildSimHub had attempted several unsuccessful methods of serving Beijing Jianyi Investment Development Group Co., Ltd. and Jianyi Investment and Development Co. The two Jianyi defendants did not oppose service through their U.S.-based counsel, Leon Emmanuel Jew of the Dahyee Law Group. The court therefore granted BuildSimHub’s motion to serve those defendants through Mr. Jew.
Disposition
The court denied BuildSimHub’s motion for a writ of attachment and motion to strike; denied as moot Su’s application to expunge the lis pendens; denied the request for attorney fees and costs; granted defense counsel’s motion to withdraw subject to the stated conditions; and granted BuildSimHub’s motion for alternative service of process. The court continued the case-management conference from March 3 to April 14, 2022, and required an updated case-management statement by April 4, 2022. The order addressed preliminary and case-management matters rather than deciding the underlying contract or other claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.