Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV03748, Date: 2024-10-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV03748 Hearing Date: October 18, 2024 Dept: 6
Plaintiff
Yijin Zhang’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendants: Zhong Fang, 9920 Valley Blvd LLC, a California limited liability company, f.k.a., 9920 Valley Blvd LP, California Investment Regional Center, LLC, and Does 1 through 50
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract case. On December 4, 2023, plaintiff Yijin Zhang (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants Zhong Fang, 9920 Valley Blvd LLC, a California Limited liability company, f.k.a., 9920 Valley Blvd LP, California Investment Regional Center, LLC (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for fraud – intentional misrepresentation, breach of contract, money had and received, and unfair and unlawful business practices. On July 18, 2024, default was entered against the Defendants. On September 30, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a default judgment package.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has failed to timely respond or appear. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585.) 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) declaration of nonmilitary status; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.)
REQUESTS
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice. (Evid. Code § 452, subd. (d).) But, the Court takes judicial notice only as to the existence, content, and authenticity of such documents; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted therein. (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.)
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $777,988.42, including $538,800.00 in damages, $237,123.29 in interest, and $2,065.13 in costs. The Court finds some issues with Plaintiff’s default judgment package, mainly as it pertains to the damages calculation. First, the only documentary evidence of payment from Plaintiff to any of the Defendants is a $5,000.00 deposit on March 10, 2017, and a wire transfer for $500,500.00 on April 3, 2017. (Zhang Decl., Exs. D, E.) Second, Plaintiff is requesting $538,800.00 in principal damages, but the refund agreement only shows an agreement to refund $520,000.00, plus a $10,000 late payment interest, so it is unclear where the additional $8,800.00 came from. (Zhang Decl., Ex. F.) Third, Plaintiff’s declaration indicates Fang has refunded “$30,000 of the $530,000.” (Zhang Decl., ¶ 15.) It is thus unclear to the Court what Plaintiff’s principal damages are.
CONCLUSION