Margolis & Tisman v. Chen CA2/8

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 15, 2025B333744California1,991 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiley, J.

Filed 12/15/25 Margolis & Tisman v. Chen CA2/

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

MARGOLIS & TISMAN LLP, B333744

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC512773 v.

SHUN SHENG CHEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Colin P. Leis, Judge. Affirmed. Blank Rome, Mike Margolis; Zee Law Group, Tappan Zee and Kimberly Sue Navarro Barrientos for Plaintiff and Respondent. Kenner Law Group and Jason J.L. Yang for Defendant and Appellant. ____________________ In April 2014, Margolis & Tisman LLP won a default judgment against Shun Sheng Chen. Nearly ten years later, Chen filed a motion to vacate this default judgment, claiming Margolis…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.