Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 21PSCV00465, Date: 2022-07-25 Tentative Ruling
The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.
Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.
The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.
Case Number: 21PSCV00465 Hearing Date: July 25, 2022 Dept: O
Plaintiff Xueqing Cai’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
Background
Plaintiff Xueqing Cai (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:
Plaintiff and Jie Xu (“Xu”) have been friends for years. In June 2020, Xu asked Plaintiff to loan him $300,000.00 for the down payment on a property Xu wanted to purchase. Plaintiff agreed. On or about July 2020, Xu drafted and signed a written loan agreement, wherein Xu agreed to repay the $300,000.00 within 6 years. Plaintiff thereafter transferred the $300,000.00 to Xu. Xu did not purchase any properties after Plaintiff lent the money to him. Plaintiff demanded immediate repayment of the money, but Xu only returned $180,000.00.
On November 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Xu and Does 1-20 for:
Fraud
Breach of Contract
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Breach of Quasi-Contract
Restitution for Unjust Enrichment
On January 20, 2022, Xu’s default was entered.
An Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment is set for July 25, 2022.
Discussion
Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted:
It is unclear to the court what damages Plaintiff has sustained by reason of Xu’s allegedly false representation for needing the loan. The translated loan agreement provides, in relevant part, that “[s]tarting from today, the repayment will be amortized over six years (the calculation of interest is based upon the bank interest for the corresponding period). Plaintiff acknowledges that Xu has already repaid $180,000.00 of the loan. Plaintiff has not established that Xu has defaulted in making any payments on the loan. There is nothing in the loan agreement which requires Xu to immediately repay the loan in full in the event Xu does not utilize the monies loaned to purchase a property.