Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV07998, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07998    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: 74

22STCV07998           TUAN-HSI YEH, et al. vs HSIEN CHEN JUNG

OSC RE ENTRY DEFAULT JUDGMENT

TENTATIVE RULING:  The OSC will be CONTINUED for submission of additional documents and dismissal of DOEs.

Background

On March 4, 2022, Plaintiffs Tuan-His Yeh and Gigi Jung Chi Lin filed this action against Defendant Hsien Chen Jung asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of written promissory note; (2) misrepresentation; (3) fraudulent inducement; (4) false promise; (5) money had and received; and (6) conversion.

On July 5, 2022, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs’ first request for entry of default judgment “as there are no certified translations and there is no Request for Dismissal of the Doe defendants.”

On August 16, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended case summary with attached exhibits.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant fails to timely answer following proper service of process. A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and provide: (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; (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. R. Ct., rule 3.1800(a).)

Plaintiffs Must Submit Additional Documents

The Court reviewed Plaintiffs’ “Amended Case Summary Pursuant to CRC 3.1800” filed on August 16, 2022.

There is no basis to conclude Plaintiffs’ translations were made by a certified translator as required. (See Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1110(g) (“Exhibits written in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter.”) Evid. Code §§ 750, 751, 753; Gov. Code §§ 68561(a); 68566.) Qian Wen does not state they are a court-certified translator, only that they are “competent to translate from Chinese to English,” which is not sufficient. Additionally, the translation is not made under oath. Plaintiffs must submit translations of the documents from a court-certified translator.

Plaintiffs also have not submitted a request for the dismissal of Does 1-50.