Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV01959, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01959    Hearing Date: July 16, 2024    Dept: K

Plaintiff Na Jiang’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

Plaintiff Na Jiang (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

In or around July 1, 2018, Plaintiff and Fu Bang Group Corp., USA (“Fu Corp.”) entered into a written contract, wherein Plaintiff agreed to loan Fu Corp. $1,320,000.00 at 5%/annum for a one-year term. Dos Lagos Center 2, LLC (“Dos Lagos”) signed as a guarantor for the contract. Bo Chen (“Chen”) later signed as a guarantor. Defendants have failed to pay the outstanding balance.

On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Fu Corp, Dos Lagos, Chen and Does 1-10 for:

1.                  Breach of Contract

2.                  Breach of Personal Guarantee

On February 14, 2024, Chen’s default was entered.

A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment are set for July 16, 2024.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is denied with prejudice. The following defects are noted:

1.                  Plaintiff has failed to comply with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(7) (i.e., Plaintiff is to submit “[a] dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment”). Co-Defendants Fu Corp. and Dos Lagos filed an answer on October 17, 2023. Plaintiff has not dismissed Does 1-10.

2.         Plaintiff has failed to utilize the most current version of Judicial Council form CIV-100 [Rev. January 1, 2023].

3.         Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Judicial Council form CIV-100 makes no reference to costs; however, Paragraph 7 of the same document reflects that Plaintiff is seeking $963.25. Plaintiff has also submitted a separate Memorandum of Costs on Judicial Council form MC-010 indicating that she is seeking $963.25 in costs. Plaintiff’s proposed judgment does not reference any amount for costs. These discrepancies must be reconciled.

4.         Plaintiff has failed to comply with California Rules of Court Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(1) (i.e., Plaintiff is to submit “[a] brief summary of the case identifying the parties and the nature of plaintiff’s claim”).

5.         Plaintiff’s declaration and complaint purport to attach a translation of the contract into English as Exhibit B. Plaintiff, however, has not provided the court with an affidavit from a translator.

6.         Neither Exhibit A nor B to Plaintiff’s declaration and complaint appear to reference Chen whatsoever.