Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV34433, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV34433    Hearing Date: September 13, 2022    Dept: 34

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

I.           BACKGROUND

On September 17, 2021, Plaintiff Ling Xiao (“Xiao”) filed a complaint against Design & Build Partners and Enrique Ramirez alleging the following causes of action:

1.           Breach of Contract;

2.           Conversion;

3.           Unjust Enrichment/ Restitution;

4.           Unlawful and Unfair Business Practices in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200;

5.           Fraud

Default was entered against both defendants on August 12, 2022.

On September 2, 2022, Xiao filed the instant default judgment.

II.        REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

On September 2, 2022, Xiao “requests the taking of judicial notice of the following documents which are being submitted in support of her Application Requesting Entry of Default Judgment by this Court, jointly and severely, against Defendants Design & Build Partners Inc. (“Design & Build”) and Enrique Ramirez (“Ramirez”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”).” (Requests for Judicial Notice, p. 1:23-28.)

1.           REQUEST NO. 1: Conformed Copy of the Proof of Substituted Service of the individual Enrique Ramirez and the California corporation, Design & Build Partners Inc., with due diligence declaration attached, filed on May 11, 2022, which is attached to the Exhibit List filed concurrently herewith and marked as “EXHIBIT 2”.

2.           REQUEST NO. 2: Conformed Copy of the Request for Entry of Default on the individual Enrique Ramirez and the California corporation, Design & Build Partners Inc., served on Defendant August 5, 2022, and filed on August 12, 2022, which is attached to the Exhibit List filed concurrently herewith and marked as “EXHIBIT 3”.

3.           REQUEST NO. 3: Design & Build’s Statement of Information with the California Secretary of State which is attached to the Exhibit List filed concurrently herewith and marked for identification as “EXHIBIT 4”.

4.           REQUEST NO. 4: Design & Build’s contractor license details before the Contractors State License Board, which is attached to the Exhibit List filed concurrently herewith and marked for identification as “EXHIBIT 5”.

The Court DENIES Requests Nos. 1 and 2 as superfluous. Any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to a matter filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).)

The Court GRANTS Requests Nos. 3 and 4. (Evid. Code §§ 452(h), 453.) Although the existence of a document may be judicially noticeable, the truth of statements contained in the document and its proper interpretation are not subject to judicial notice if those matters are reasonably disputable. (StorMedia, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9, 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 976 P.2d 214.)

III.     ANALYSIS

Default Judgment is entered in the amount of $115,460.65 against both defendants, jointly and severally, as indicated below: