Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: BC704907, Date: 2023-08-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC704907    Hearing Date: August 4, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            After review, the Court has identified the following deficiencies with Plaintiff’s default judgment packet:

-         The Court finds Plaintiff’s packet very difficult to follow. Plaintiff must resubmit a memorandum of points and authorities which better sets out of the facts of this case, Lexury’s role here, the basis of its liability, and the legal authority for imposing liability on them.

-         Plaintiff must better show why it has standing to recoup money that was sent by Zhao/Zhang to Hu. While the Court understands Plaintiff’s contention that Lexury did not make this sale and was part of Zhao/Zhang’s effort to conceal where they had gotten the vehicles from, it is still unclear why Plaintiff would be able to recoup money sent by Zhao/Zhang to make it look like there had been a sale (given that this money was not taken from Plaintiff, nor was it actually exchanged for any good belonging to Plaintiff). Plaintiff must also explain what is meant by Mr. Hu’s statement that “And you need to provide proof to show that this company and Jthejcusa have the payment records based on the investment.”

-         A Court judgment has already been issued here. Plaintiff must submit facts and legal argument to show that issuing a default judgment for Lexury would not run afoul of the one-judgment rule, and that it would not result in multiple recoveries.