Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV02200, Date: 2025-03-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24PSCV02200 Hearing Date: March 7, 2025 Dept: 6
Plaintiff ’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment
Defendants: William Tseng, Johnny Tseng, Southwestern Depaul University, Columbia University United Foundation
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This is a fraudulent transfer case. On July 8, 2024, plaintiff Yingquan Liu (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants William Tseng (William), Johnny Tseng (Johnny), Southwestern Depaul University (Southwestern), Columbia University United Foundation (Columbia) (collectively, Defendants), and Does 1 through 5, alleging causes of action for fraudulent transfer and to add additional debtors for the underlying judgment.
On August 29, 2024, default was entered against Defendants William, Southwestern, and Columbia. On January 10, 2024, default was entered against Defendant Johnny.
On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a request for entry of default judgment.
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.)
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $829,701.04, including $768,245.72 in damages, $60,197.28 in interest, and $1,258.04 in costs. The Court notes numerous major defects with this default judgment request. First, Plaintiff is not entitled to monetary damages against Defendant William if Plaintiff already obtained a judgment against William in a separate lawsuit. (Compl., ¶¶ 18-19; Renda v. Nevarez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1231, 1236 [judgment creditor may not obtain an additional monetary judgment against judgment debtor for fraudulent transfer, as that would constitute a double recovery].)
Second, Plaintiff submitted insufficient evidence to support setting aside any alleged fraudulent transfer. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b) ["The court shall hear the evidence offered by the plaintiff and shall render judgment in the plaintiffs favor for that relief, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint,… as appears by the evidence to be just"]; id., § 585, subd. (c) [“the court shall hear the evidence offered by the plaintiff, and shall render judgment in the plaintiff's favor for that relief, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint… as appears by the evidence to be just”]; see also ibid. [“In all cases [involving service by publication] where the plaintiff bases a claim upon a paper title, the court shall require evidence establishing the plaintiff's equitable right to judgment before rendering judgment]”; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subds. (a)(2), (a)(8).) Plaintiff contends that several fraudulent transfers of the subject property occurred before it was transferred to Johnny, but provides no recorded grant deeds or other documentary evidence to support this contention. (See Compl., ¶ 26; Long Decl.) Plaintiff fails to submit any evidence supporting entitlement to relief for a claim for fraudulent transfer.
Third, Plaintiff did not submit a brief summary of the case or a declaration from a person with personal knowledge of the underlying facts of the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subds. (a)(1)-(a)(2); Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 288 [declarations submitted in support of default judgment found to be “useless as evidence” where they were unintelligible and lacked foundation].) Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration provides no information demonstrating personal knowledge of the facts underlying Plaintiff’s claim. (See Long Decl.)
Fourth, there are insufficient allegations and evidence demonstrating alter ego liability against Johnny or successor corporation liability against Southwestern or Columbia in order to add them as judgment debtors to the prior judgment against William. (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 282 [court cannot award default judgment if the complaint fails to plead a proper cause of action]; Misik v. D'Arco (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1065, 1072, fn. 1 [alter ego judgment debtor may be added via separate action].) The complaint only alleges that Johnny is a transferee of William’s fraudulent transfer and that Johnny is William’s son. (Compl., ¶¶ 28, 44-53.)
Fifth, Plaintiff’s prejudgment interest calculation is overstated by two days. (See Long Decl. (1/17/25).) The number of days between April 6, 2024, and January 15, 2025, is 284 days. Also, this case is based solely on non-contract claims, and prejudgment interest for non-contract claims is 7%. (Civ. Code, § 3288; Cal. Const. Art. XV, § 1; Children's Hosp. and Medical Center v. Bonta (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 740, 775 [prejudgment interest rate for non-contract claims is 7%]; Los Angeles National Bank v. Bank of Canton (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 726, 745-746 [7% prejudgment interest rate applies to claims for statutory violations].)
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment is DENIED.