Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV25143, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV25143    Hearing Date: June 11, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) seeks default judgment against Defendants Han Chuan Leow, LLC (“HCL”) and Han Chuan Leow (“Leow”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

Plaintiff requests:

(1) money judgment in the amount of $246,610.25, consisting of:

(a) damages in the amount of $241,403.76;

(b) costs in the amount of $902.46; and

(c) attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,304.03.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for default judgment.

Background

This case arises out of a loan transaction.

On December 29, 2015, Plaintiff and HCL entered into a Line of Credit Note (the “Note”), whereby Plaintiff loaned HCL a principal amount of $225,000.00. (See Escobar Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1.) On the same day, Leow entered into a Continuing Guaranty (the “Guaranty”) for the Note. (Escobar Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 2.)

HCL subsequently failed to make payments on the Note and entered into default. Leow has failed to cure HCL’s default under the Guaranty.

Plaintiff filed this action on September 30, 2024. The operative complaint is now the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which raises claims for (1) breach of contract (against HCL); and (2) breach of guaranty (against Leow).

Default was entered against HCL on January 31, 2025.

Default was entered against Leow on April 2, 2025.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure, section 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 Form CIV-100 Request for Court Judgment, and:

(1) Proof of service of the complaint and summons;

(2) A dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought (including Doe defendants) or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment (CRC 3.1800(a)(7));

(3) A declaration of non-military status as to the defendant (typically included in Form CIV-100) (CRC 3.1800(a)(5));

(4) A brief summary of the case (CRC 3.1800(a)(1));

(5) Admissible evidence supporting a prima facie case for the damages or other relief requested (Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361-362);

(6) Interest computations as necessary (CRC 3.1800(a)(3));

(7) A memorandum of costs and disbursements (typically included in Form CIV-100 (CRC 3.1800(a)(4));

(8) A request for attorney’s fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties (CRC 3.1800(a)(9)), accompanied by a declaration stating that the fees were calculated in accordance with the fee schedule as per Local Rule 3.214.  Where a request for attorney fees is based on a contractual provision the specific provision must be cited; (Local Rule 3.207); and

(9) A proposed form of judgment (CRC 3.1800(a)(6));

(10) Where an application for default judgment is based upon a written obligation to pay money, the original written agreement should be submitted for cancellation (CRC 3.1806). A trial court may exercise its discretion to accept a copy where the original document was lost or destroyed by ordering the clerk to cancel the copy instead (Kahn v. Lasorda's Dugout, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1124);

(11) Where the plaintiff seeks damages for personal injury or wrongful death, they must serve a statement of damages on the defendant in the same manner as a summons (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.11, subd. (c), (d)).

(California Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.)

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(1), items are allowable as costs under Section 1032 if they are “filing, motion, and jury fees.”

A party who defaults only admits facts that are well-pleaded in the complaint or cross-complaint. (Molen v. Friedman (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153-1154.) Thus, the complaint must state a claim for the requested relief.

Discussion

Service of the Complaint and Summons

            According to the proofs of service filed on December 2, 2024, Defendants were served on November 26, 2024 at 8259 Blackburn Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90048-4215 via substituted service on John Doe, a resident.

Dismissal of Other Parties

The Doe defendants were dismissed from the action on May 14, 2025, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

Form CIV-100

Plaintiff has filed a form CIV-100 seeking default judgment.

Non-Military Status

Joshua K Partington avers to Defendants’ non-military status.

Summary of the Case

Plaintiff provides a brief summary of the case in the declarations of Joshua K. Partington and Veronica Escobar. Plaintiff adequately pleads its causes of action in the Complaint.

Evidence of Damages

“Code of Civil Procedure section 580 prohibits the entry of a default judgment in an amount in excess of that demanded in the complaint.”  (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 286.) Moreover, “a statement of damages cannot be relied upon to establish a plaintiff's monetary damages, except in cases of personal injury or wrongful death.” (Ibid.) “In all other cases, when recovering damages in a default judgment, the plaintiff is limited to the damages specified in the complaint.” (Ibid.) Moreover, a plaintiff must submit admissible evidence supporting a prima facie case for the damages or other relief requested (Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361-362.)

            Veronica Escobar declares that HCL owes a total of $241,403.76 under the note, comprised of $225,091.97 in principal, $15,209.34 in accrued interest, and $1,102.45 in late fees and costs. (Escobar Decl. ¶ 6.) Escobar provides a copy of the account transaction history. (Escobar Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 3.)

            Plaintiff has adequately evidenced its damages.

Prejudgment Interest

Plaintiff does not seek prejudgment interest.

Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements

Plaintiff includes a memorandum of costs in the submitted Form CIV-100. Joshua K. Partington avers that Plaintiff expended $902.46 in costs.

Attorney’s Fees

            Plaintiff requests $4,304.03 in attorney’s fees. The Note and Guaranty each contain a provision for attorney’s fees.

This is an action on a contract. Because the judgment is over $100,000, the maximum recovery of attorney’s fees is equal to $2,890 plus 1% of the excess over $100,000. (Local Rule 3.214.) This amount is equal to $4,304.03. The Court therefore approves Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees.

Proposed Form of Judgment

            Plaintiff has submitted a proposed form of judgment.

Submission of the Written Agreement

            California Rule of Court 3.1806 states that “unless otherwise ordered” judgment upon a written obligation to pay money requires a clerk’s note across the face of the writing that there has been a judgment. Here, Plaintiff has not submitted the original documents. The Court does not discern any practical need for such a clerk’s note on the written obligation in the current case and therefore orders that it need not be included. If this causes any issues for any party or non-party, they are authorized to bring the matter to the Court’s attention. 

Statement of Damages

Plaintiff does not need to submit a statement of damages because this is not a personal injury or wrongful death case.