Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV13065, Date: 2022-09-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13065    Hearing Date: September 16, 2022    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

            The Court CONTINUES the instant hearing to allow Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies identified above.

            On April 6, 2021 Plaintiff Elice Hennessee (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint asserting causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) professional negligence, (3) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, (4) negligent hiring, (5) negligent misrepresentation, and (6) intentional misrepresentation against Defendants Novad Management Consulting, LLC (“Novad”), and Jialiang P. Wang (“Wang”) (collectively “Defendants”).

            On May 10, 2021, the Court’s Clerk entered default as to Novad.

            On January 18, 2022 Wang filed an Answer.

            Plaintiff seeks a default Judgment against Novad for $1,512,929.46, representing $1,457,000 in damages, $30,140.96 in prejudgment interest, $25,000 in attorney’s fees, and $788.50 in costs.  

Legal Standard

CCP § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has failed to timely answer after being properly served.  A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.  (CRC Rule 3.1800.)

Discussion

            A review of Plaintiff’s default judgment package reveals that it is deficient for the following reasons:

·        Plaintiff failed to give notice of the amount of damages sought.  Plaintiff failed to include the specific amount sought.  Plaintiff must file an amended Complaint, which includes the specific amount of damages sought.

·        Plaintiff seeks a 10% prejudgment interest rate, but fails to provide that Plaintiff’s damages arise from a breach of contract or cite that provision entitles Plaintiff to a rate of 10%.  (See Civ. Code § 3289.)

·        Plaintiff fails to explain (or provide evidence) how she determined that she overpaid $57,0000, and is due that amount of special damages.

·        Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence that she suffered $30,000 in past medical and future medical expenses.

·        Plaintiff fails to provide a basis for the attorney’s fees sought.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5 [attorneys’ fees only allowed when authorized by contract, statute, or law].)  Plaintiff also fails to provide how the attorney’s fees were calculated.

·        Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient evidence to support $350,000 in general damages.  Plaintiff contends that she suffered anxiety, depression, and stress, and that she has been undergoing medical treatment for the same.  While Plaintiff may be due some general damages, her representation that she suffered anxiety, depression, and stress is insufficient to support the damages sought.  In addition, Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence that her medical treatment is related to the circumstances and events giving rise to this case.

·        Plaintiff failed to present any evidence that Novad acted with malice, oppression, or fraud to support an award for punitive damages.  The evidence provided may establish that Novad was negligent, and maybe even grossly negligent, but it does not establish that its conduct rises to the level to support an award of punitive damages.  (See Lackner v. North (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1210-13; Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 279, 285-86.)  

·        Plaintiff failed to dismiss Wang, and has failed to show that liability is joint and several.  (See Civil Code § [“An obligation imposed upon several persons, or a right created in favor of several persons, is presumed to be joint, and not several.”])

Accordingly, the Court CONTINUES the instant hearing to allow Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies identified above.

Dated:  September 16, 2022

Hon. Jon R. Takasugi

Judge of the Superior Court