Judge Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case Number: KC069873, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: KC069873, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: KC069873 Hearing Date: February 5, 2024 Dept: 6

Plaintiffs Yan Li and Mesarica Management, LLC’s Request for Entry of Default Judgment

DEFAULTED DEFENDANTS

Defendants Against Whom Default Judgment is Sought: Shigang Li; Moon Management Consulting, LLC; Han International Group Inc., dba Han Realty; Zhigang Yang (collectively, Defaulted Defendants).

TENTATIVE RULING

The request for entry of default judgment against Defendant Zhigang Yang is DENIED with prejudice. The request for entry of default judgment against Defendants Shigang Li, Moon Management Consulting, LLC, and Han International Group Inc., dba Han Realty is GRANTED, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $140,266.75, consisting of $139,811.75 in damages and $455.00 in costs.

Plaintiffs to submit one proposed Judgment (Form JUD-100) reflecting the reduced amount and only as to Defendants Shigang Li, Moon Management Consulting, LLC, and Han International Group Inc., dba Han Realty. Plaintiffs must also submit a Request for Dismissal of all Doe Defendants before the default judgment will be entered.

BACKGROUND

On December 12, 2017, Plaintiffs Yan Li and Mesarica Management, LLC filed a complaint against Defendants April Lin; Han International Group, Inc., dba Han Realty; Shigang Li; Jui Yuan Cheng; and Moon Management Consulting, LLC.

On July 8, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendants April Lin; Han International Group, Inc., dba Han Realty; Shigang Li; Zhigang Yang; and Moon Management Consulting, LLC.

Defendant April Lin was dismissed from the FAC on September 19, 2023.

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) a proposed form of judgment; (6) 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; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800.)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs seek default judgment against each of the Defaulted Defendants in the total amount of $140,305.05, comprised solely of $139,811.75 in damages, $38.30 per diem (10%) in interest, and $455.00 in costs.

Plaintiffs have not submitted any evidence substantiating Plaintiffs’ claimed damages against Defendant Zhigang Yang. The FAC and the supporting default judgment declarations are devoid of any allegations of wrongdoing directed at Defendant Zhigang Yang. For these reasons, the request for entry of default judgment against Defendant Zhigang Yang is denied with prejudice.

As to the remaining Defaulted Defendants, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence to support the requests for entry of default judgment. However, Plaintiffs did not request prejudgment interest in the FAC and therefore cannot recover prejudgment interest. Accordingly, the Court will grant the requests for entry of default judgment in the reduced amount of $140,266.75, consisting of $139,811.75 in damages and $455.00 in costs.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the request for entry of default judgment against Defendant Zhigang Yang is DENIED with prejudice. The request for entry of default judgment against Defendants Shigang Li, Moon Management Consulting, LLC, and Han International Group Inc., dba Han Realty is GRANTED, jointly and severally, in the reduced amount of $140,266.75, consisting of $139,811.75 in damages and $455.00 in costs.