Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 21PSCV00829, Date: 2022-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00829    Hearing Date: November 14, 2022    Dept: O

Plaintiff Chang Shun Zhao’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

Plaintiff Chang Shun Zhao (“Zhao”) alleges as follows:

Plaintiff is the owner of the property located at 11310 Frankmont Street in El Monte, California, 91732 (the “Residence”). On or about March 16, 2020, Plaintiff entered into one or more agreements with George Chen aka Chun Hsu Chen (“Chen”) and Great Chens Inc. (“GCI”) wherein Chen and GCI agreed to provide construction, renovation, and landscaping work on the Residence. Chen and GCI instead performed substandard and incomplete work, stole money that was prepaid to them, failed to pay subcontractors and abandoned personal property at the Residence.

On December 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of action against Chen, GCI, Hudson Insurance Company (“Hudson”) and Does 1-50 for:

1.                  Breach of Contract

2.                  Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

3.                  Negligence

4.                  Trespass

5.                  Money had and Received

6.                  Unjust Enrichment

7.                  Contractor’s License Bond

On January 5, 2022, Hudson filed a cross-complaint, asserting a cause of action against Chen, GCI and Roes 1-100 for:

1.                  Declaratory Relief

On August 11, 2022, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to strike Chen’s answer, with 20 days’ leave to amend. On September 26, 2022, Chen’s default was entered.

A Case Management Conference is set for November 14, 2022.

Discussion

Plaintiff Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

1.                  Plaintiff has failed to provide a summary of the case. as per California Rules of Court (“CRC”) rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(1).

2.                  Plaintiff has not dismissed GCI, Hudson and Does 1-50, nor has he filed an application for separate judgment as against any of them, as per CRC rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(7). Exhibit 1 appears to be a proposal to Plaintiff from GCI and Exhibit 2 are invoices to Plaintiff from GCI; accordingly, Chen’s personal liability is unclear. Plaintiff has alleged that Chen is GCI’s alter ego, but has not provided any evidence of same.

3.                  Plaintiff has not provided the court with a translation of portions of Exhibits 1, 2 and 4, accompanied by a certified translator’s declaration; while a translation of Exhibit 5 has been provided, it is not accompanied by a certified translator’s declaration.

4.                  Plaintiff has provided a list of items that Chen constructed which purportedly failed to pass inspection, but does not provide the court with any documentation reflecting their rejected status.

5.                  Plaintiff has not provided documentation in support of the amounts set forth in ¶¶ 16-18, 21-23 and 25, subdivisions (b)-(e), (g) and (h).