Filed 3/27/23 Wu v. Zhong CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO ZHIJUN WU, Plaintiff and Appellant, A165948 v. JIANBO ZHONG, (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. CGC-21-595414) Defendant and Respondent. Zhijun Wu sued Jianbo Zhong, alleging causes of action for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty based on claims Zhong collected rent from one of Wu’s tenants on Wu’s behalf and then failed to pay over the money. Zhong filed a cross-complaint against Wu and her mother, Xuezhen Huang, alleging causes of action for fraud, based on claims that he had loaned them money based on false promises by Huang to repay him and that they had participated in a scheme to avoid paying the debt. Wu then filed an anti- SLAPP special motion to strike, contending that the cross-complaint arose from her protected activity in sending Zhong a prelitigation demand letter and filing suit against him. The trial court denied the motion, and Wu now appeals. We affirm. 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Wu’s Complaint against Zhong In September 2021, Wu filed a complaint in San Francisco Superior Court alleging that she owned “residential premises known as 405 Girard Street,” and that in March or April 2018, her mother, Huang, asked Zhong “to help her manage plaintiff’s property the subject premises [sic].” In April 2018, Zhong rented 405 Girard Street to a tenant, who agreed to pay $2,500 per month in rent. The tenant paid the monthly rent to Zhong, who would deliver it to Huang. In October 2018, Huang went to China, and although the tenant continued to pay his monthly rent to Zhong from November 2018 through August 2021, Zhong failed to forward the rent he had collected, which amounted to about $88,000. Wu further alleged that she had sent a written demand to Zhong for the collected rent, to which Zhong had not responded. Wu alleged causes of action against Zhong for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty, and sought damages of $88,000, plus interest and costs of suit. B. Zhong’s Cross-Complaint against Wu and Huang Zhong filed a cross-complaint against Wu and Huang in December 2021, alleging that they owed him more than $87,000 in expenses that he had incurred in connection with their rental properties. He alleged that Huang, her husband, and their three children (including Wu) immigrated to the United States in September 2012. Huang was the god-daughter of Zhong’s mother and was close to Zhong when young, and because of that connection Huang’s family lived with Zhong and his family in Zhong’s San Francisco home for about five years. Zhong considered Huang a close friend, and trusted her. 2 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals