Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV02724, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV02724    Hearing Date: May 1, 2025    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is CONTINUED for supplemental

briefing on the issue of whether judgment may be entered against G.B.T. or, in the alternative,

Plaintiff may file an amended judgment only seeking judgment against Defendant Lu. 

Background

This is a contracts case.

On August 21, 2024, Plaintiffs TIMOTHY PERRIN, TERRY MILLER, and PATRICK PERRIN filed suit against Defendants G.B.T., Inc. dba GIGABYTE USA, INC., ERIC LU (president of the corporation) for the failure to repay Plaintiffs for the supplemental assessment issued on the property that is subject to the parties’ lease agreement.

On December 10, 2024, default was entered against Defendants.

On April 3, 2025, the instant application was filed.

Discussion

Plaintiffs seek entry of default judgment against Defendants in the amount of 116,449.87, inclusive of attorney fees, interest, and costs. As set forth in the complaint and application material, in paragraph 10, the lease provides that the tenant shall pay all real property taxes. In connection with a sale, defendant Eric Lu signed an estoppel certificate which acknowledged in part that the tenant is responsible for real property taxes and that those taxes would be increased based on a reassessment of the property on July 22, 2021. (Ex. B.) The Los Angeles County tax collector issued a supplemental assessment with regard to the leased property in the amount of $95,775 in respect of the leased property during the term of the Lease (Ex. C), which amount Defendants have failed and refuse to pay although demand has been made. Thus, the court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately provided an explanation and evidence for recovery of the assessment amount.

Notwithstanding, Plaintiff’s case summary provides that plaintiffs discovered that there is no valid legal entity named “Gigabyte USA, Inc.” registered with the California Secretary of State. Further investigation with the California Secretary of State revealed the existence of another legal entity as to which defendant Eric Lu was Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer, and which was in existence at the time of the subject lease, and thus appeared to be the actual, but undisclosed, principal. That entity is defendant G.B.T., Inc. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to judgment against G.B.T., Inc. as an undisclosed principal pursuant to Luce v. Sutton (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 428. However, the court’s review of that case does not find that it supports Plaintiffs’ position that evidence of another corporation owned by an officer/agent would allow for entry of judgment as to that corporation.

Default judgment against an entity aside, default judgment against Defendant Eric Lu is permissible. (See Summary of Case, p. 2, citing 3 Witkin, Summary of California Law, Agency Section 207(1)(11th Ed. 2024), Civil Code Section 2343(2); Nicholls Green & Milin Co. v. Jersey Farm Dairy Co., 134 Cal. App. 126 (1933) [a party who claims to sign a contract as an agent for a principal which is non-existent or non-disclosed is personally liable on the contract]. Thus, should Plaintiffs only seek judgment against Eric Lu, the court request they file an amended proposed order.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the court continues the matter for a supplemental declaration that briefs the issue of whether judgment may be entered against G.B.T.