Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 21PSCV00767, Date: 2022-12-12 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: 21PSCV00767    Hearing Date: December 12, 2022    Dept: O

Plaintiff Wang Bih Chu’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

Plaintiff Wang Bih Chu (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On December 30, 2018, Plaintiff loaned $10,000.00 to Yu-Ping Fu (“Defendant”). Defendant agreed to repay $5,000.00 by December 30, 2019; if he failed to do so by that date, then the entire $10,000.00 would be due and payable. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff $5,000.00 by December 10, 2019.

On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendant and Does 1-20 for:

1.                  Breach of Contract

On November 9, 2021, Defendant’s default was entered.

An Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment is set for December 12, 2022.

Discussion

Plaintiff Wang Bih Chu’s Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

1.                  Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s declaration is comprised of three checks made out to Defendant, one dated January 5, 2017 for $3,300.00, (2) another dated January 6, 2017 for $3,900.00 and (3) one dated January 10, 2017 for $3,800.00. These amounts total $11,000.00, not $10,000.00. Plaintiff explains that these three checks were drawn on her brother (i.e., Chen Jen Wang) and sister-in-law’s (i.e., Shu Chuan Hsiao) bank account per a power of attorney Plaintiff had. No power of attorney is provided. It would seem, then, that the money is owed by Defendant to Chen Jen Wang and Shu Chuan Hsiao, not Plaintiff. The court queries Plaintiff’s standing.

2.                  Plaintiff has alleged that she “made the original loan . . . to Defendant on December 30, 2018.” (Complaint, ¶ 5.) Additionally, Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff’s declaration is an undated agreement which states, in relevant part, that Defendant “borrowed $10,000” from Plaintiff “[o]n 2018 December 30.” The check amounts and dates in Exhibit 2 do not align with the aforesaid allegation and statement. Plaintiff’s declaration does not adequately explain this inconsistency; instead, Plaintiff only attests that Defendant “requested that [Plaintiff] loan her money many times prior to December 30, 2018,” that “[Plaintiff] finally agreed to loan [Defendant] the money she requested,” that she made the loan proceeds in several payments to Defendant, which initially included $2,000.00, followed by the three aforementioned checks and that Defendant paid back $3,000.00. (Chu Decl., ¶¶ 3-5 and 7 [emphasis added].)