Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 19PSCV00580, Date: 2024-09-04 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.



Case Number: 19PSCV00580    Hearing Date: September 4, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

 

Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of Default Judgment is NOT RIPE because no formal entry of default has been entered against Wu.

 

Background

 

This case involves trade secrets. Plaintiff Auto Security & Monitoring, Inc. alleges the following against Defendants Nai De Wu, a.k.a Danny Wu: Since 2005, Plaintiff has been a company in the business of providing services and technical devices to the trucking and busing industry. Defendant was employed between about March 2008 to about March 4, 2019. Wu began to solicit Plaintiff’s customers to purchase Wu’s own products, failed to install tracking devices correctly so as to lose the trust of clients, and then departed to a competing firm. Thus far, Plaintiff has lost about 8 clients, suffering financial losses over $360,000.00 from Wu's illegal solicitations from Plaintiff’s customers.

 

On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed suit for:


1.     MISAPPROPRIATION: VIOLATION OF UNIFORMTRADE SECRETS ACT (CIVILCODE SECTION 3426 ET SEQ)'
2.     CONVERSION

3.     INTENTIONAL INTKRFERENCK WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS

4.     INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

5.     NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

6.     NEGLIGENCE

7.     DECLARATORYRELIEF

8.     VIOLATION OF B&P CODE SECTIONS 17200 ET SKQ.

On March 20, 2020, Plaintiff amended its complaint (FAC) to name ANYTREK Corporation, which is the company Wu works at.

 

On May 19, 2020, default was entered as to Anytrek as to the original complaint.

 

On September 3, 2020, default was entered as to Anytrek as to the FACt.

 

On September 10, 2020, Anytrek and Wu filed their answer.

 

On March 24, 2021, the court entered the Stipulation and Order to Set Aside the Default Entered Against Anytrek.

 

On April 1, 2021, Anytrek filed its answer to the FAC.

 

On November 3, 2022, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its FAC. That same day, Plaintiff filed its second amended complaint (SAC) against the same defendants, and adding two new causes of action (COAs) for Violation of Unfair Competition Under Business and Professions Code sections 17043 and 17044.

 

On November 8, 2022, Anytrek filed its answer to the SAC. (For clarity, the amended answer was only filed by Anytrek.)

 

On January 12, 2023, the court’s minute order re: mediation states that “Plaintiff's counsel is to meet and confer with counsel James Green regarding setting aside default to allow Mr. Green and Nai De Wu to participate in mediation and contributing to the cost of mediation.” (emphasis added.)

 

On June 14, 2023, the minute order provides in relevant party that “The Court notes, Defendant Nai De Wu remains in Default. A Motion to Set Aside Default nor any other related motions have been brought before the Court to allow the Defendant to participate in this matter.” (Emphasis added.)

 

On April 2, 2024, a notice of settlement was filed.

 

On June 20, 2024, the court entered the stipulation and order for the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement between Anytrek and Plaintiff.

 

On July 3, 2024, Anytrek was dismissed from the SAC.

 

On July 8, 2024, the court’s minute order provides, in relevant part, the following: “Plaintiff's Counsel represents to the Court that the second amended complaint is the operative pleading and Plaintiff's Counsel is seeking to move forward with the Defendant as to Defendant Nai De Wu. The Court informs Defendant Nai De Wu that he is currently in Default Status.” (emphasis added.)  

 

On July 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a ‘TRIAL BRIEF WITH SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS AND DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT NAI DE WU, a.k.a. DANNY WU.’

 

Discussion

 

Plaintiff seeks entry of default judgment in the amount of $492,750 against Wu. However, default has not been entered against Wu as to the SAC, which is the operative pleading. Pursuant to CCP section 471.5, “[t]he defendant shall answer the amendments, or the complaint as amended, within 30 days after service thereof, or such other time as the court may direct, and judgment by default may be entered upon failure to answer, in other cases.” And if a defendant does not file his answer, CCP section 585 subdivision (b) provides that the plaintiff is to file a request for entry of default with the clerk. Here, the docket does not reflect entry of default (on a CIV-100 form).

 

Therefore, any requests for entry of default judgment absent default is premature.