Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 17LBUD01728, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 17LBUD01728    Hearing Date: March 28, 2023    Dept: 68

17LBUD01728     WILLIAM MCDONALD vs ALFRED CHAN
This action was begun on December 11, 2017 as a unlawful detainer suit by Plaintiff McDonald against …  Well, actually even that was not entirely clear.  The named Defendant was “Alfred Chan dba Zili Group Inc.”  (Complaint ¶ 1.)  An Answer was filed December 26, 2017 by an attorney who indicated that he represented “Defendant Alfred Chan and Zi Li Group, Inc.” or maybe it was “Alfred Chan dba Zi Li Group, Inc.” (Answer ¶ 1.)  Or maybe not that either, since the Answer included an attachment which stated “The lease is with Zi Li Group, Inc., a California corporation, only.  Defendant ALFRED CHAN does not have a DBA for the corporation Zi Li Group, Inc.”  (Attachment.)

On February 14, 2018 a First Amended Complaint was filed naming as Defendant “Zili Group, Inc.” only.  Thereafter, on March 26, 2018  judgment for possession by default was obtained against “Zili Group, Inc.”  A monetary judgment was also entered about a year later.

Jumping forward, the judgment was set aside on November 17, 2020.  (Order November 17, 2020.)  A lot of effort was then expended over a period of years.  Amended Complaint, Cross-Complaints, etc.  Now we are near the end.  This case is proceeding by default against Alfred Chan, alleged to be liable as a guarantor of the lease.  The operative complaint is the Second Amended Complaint filed August 26, 2021.  The only cause of action asserted is on the Guaranty of Chan.  McDonald seeks to recover $63,000 for unpaid rent and $5,000 for costs of repair, as well as prejudgment interest, calculated to be $9,527.52 based on $17.26 per day.  McDonald also seeks to recover $2,250 as attorney’s fees.

The Court has reviewed the Declaration of Plaintiff William McDonald in support of the default judgment as well as the related documentation and exhibits.  The allegation of the Second Amended Complaint is:

“Defendants, ALFRED CHAN and DOES 6 through 10, 9 inclusive, and each of them (hereinafter referred to as the “GUARANTORS”) executed a written guaranty of the obligations of the TENANTS under the Lease, with said written guaranty being a part of the document attached hereto as Exhibit “1””  (SAC ¶ 7.)  It is alleged that Chan has breached the guaranty.  (SAC ¶ 15, 17.)

The Declaration of McDonald states:

“6.  Concurrent with execution of the Lease, the Guarantor executed a written guaranty (hereinafter referred to as "the Guaranty") of the obligations of the Tenant under the Lease, the original of which guaranty is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "2" as though fully set forth hereat.”  (¶ 6.)

The Court does not see a signature on the Lease Guaranty provision.  (Exhibit 1, pg. 6.)  This must be explained to the Court.

In all other respects the default submissions appears to be proper, and Plaintiff appears to be entitled to recover judgment against Chan – assuming the evidence shows that Chan guaranteed the Lease.