Filed 9/24/20 Yao v. Pro-Management Consulting CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR YU-JUNG YAO et al., B293864 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC702426) v. PRO-MANAGEMENT CONSULTING, Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark V. Mooney, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Paul P. Cheng & Associates, John P. Fitzmorris, Gene S. Lizaso, David T. Ching, Rebecca Gardner and Paul P. Cheng for Defendants and Appellants. Yu-Jung Yao, in pro per., for Plaintiffs and Respondents. Defendants and appellants Pro Management Consulting, Inc. (PMC) and John Tu appeal from the denial of their motion to compel arbitration of their dispute with plaintiffs and respondents Yu-Jung Yao, Yuh-Yuan Sun, and Wen-Jye Yao. They contend the trial court erred in concluding that the arbitration provision in the operating agreement for a related limited liability company was unenforceable because it was not signed. We find no error and affirm the trial court’s order denying appellants’ motion to compel. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY We provide the following summary based on the limited record provided on appeal.1 Complaint Respondents filed a complaint in April 2018 against appellants, as well as attorney Blair Greene and his law firm.2 In the complaint, respondents alleged that Wen-Jye and Sun are a married couple residing in Taiwan with their sons Yu-Jung (an adult) and non-party Yu-Hao (a minor). In 2014, they became 1 The appellate record contains both a clerk’s transcript (requested by appellants) and an appellants’ appendix (submitted by appellants). It is unclear why appellants included both. The clerk’s transcript contains appellants’ motion to compel arbitration, respondents’ opposition, and appellants’ reply thereto, along with accompanying exhibits. The appellants’ appendix contains the same documents plus additional documents, including two earlier versions of the operating agreement at issue here. To the extent it is not clear that documents included in the appellants’ appendix were before the trial court in connection with the motion to compel, we will not consider them for the first time here. 2Greene and his law firm are not parties to this appeal. 2 interested in seeking permanent residency for their family in the United States. They further alleged that appellant PMC was a California corporation “engaged in the business of providing immigration consultation services,” and that Tu was the director and Chief Executive Officer of PMC. In 2012, Tu and PMC formed Procal Investment and Management, LLC (Procal), a California limited liability company, “for the purpose of managing and operating restaurants serving as investment targets for foreign nationals applying for U.S. permanent residency through the Immigration Investment Program known as the EB-5 Program.” ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals