Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV01973, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01973    Hearing Date: July 16, 2024    Dept: K

Plaintiff Hsien Ta Chiang’s Application for Default Judgment is premature [see below].

Background   

Plaintiffs Hsien Ta Chiang (“Chiang”) and One More Cup LLC (“LLC”) (together, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:  

In 2021, Chaing formed LLC to operate a beverage business. Around March 2022, Plaintiffs saw Yaotian Liu, a/k/a Alex Liu’s (“Defendant”) advertisement that there was a storefront available for rent in the City of Industry and Defendant desired to transfer his lease for same. Defendant promised that he would obtain landlord JSL Plaza Puente Hills LLC’s (“Landlord”) approval to transfer the lease to LLC. On March 23, 2022, LLC and Defendant entered into a Transfer of Lease and Equipment Sales Agreement (“Lease Transfer Agreement”), wherein LLC was to pay $40,000.00 as a deposit; that same day, LLC and Defendant entered into an LLC Member Contribution Agreement, wherein Defendant agreed to contribute $30,000.00 to own 10% of LLC. Thereafter, Defendant agreed that Plaintiffs only had to pay $10,000.00 as a deposit under the Lease Transfer Agreement. Defendant told Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs could pay the rents and utility fees via check to him and that he would pay Landlord; Plaintiffs did so. On October 8, 2022, Plaintiffs received a notice to vacate from Landlord and later a writ of possession. Plaintiffs confronted Defendant and learned Defendant never paid the rent to Landlord.

On September 18, 2023, Liu’s default was entered on the complaint.

On February 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Liu and Does 1-20 for:

1.                  Breach of Contract

2.                  Conversion

3.                  Fraud

A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Against Plaintiff for Failure to Appear on 4/8/2024 are set for July 16, 2024.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice as premature at this juncture. Defendant’s default has not been entered on the FAC, to date (i.e., as of May 31, 2024)

Additionally, a cursory review of the default prove-up application reveals the following defects:

1.                  Plaintiff has not dismissed Doe Defendants, as per California Rules of Court (“CRC”) rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(7).

2.                  Plaintiff has not provided the court with a summary of the case, as per CRC rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(1).

3.                  Plaintiffs identify the [d]emand of complaint” in Paragraph 2 of the Request for Court Judgment (Judicial Council Form CIV-100) as $311,494.74. In actions for money damages a default judgment is limited to the amount demanded in the complaint. (See Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) The amount demanded in the complaint is determined both from the prayer and from the damage allegations in the complaint. (National Diversified Services, Inc. v. Bernstein (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 410, 417-418). Plaintiffs identify the rent as being $5,200.00/month (FAC, ¶ 9), the deposit under the Lease Transfer Agreement as $40,000.00 (and thereafter reduced to $10,000.00 after Defendant agreed to contribute $30,000.00 to own 10% of the LLC (Id., ¶¶ 12 and 14) and the electricity fee for June 2022 as $1,100.19 (Id., ¶ 17). No other monetary amounts are identified in the FAC.

4.                  Plaintiffs have not provided an interest calculation, as per CRC rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(3).

5.                  Chiang has not attached the Lease Transfer Agreement and the LLC Member Contribution Agreement to his declaration. These agreements are not attached to the FAC. There is an Exhibit 1 attached to the original complaint (purportedly of the Lease Transfer Agreement), but it is written in a foreign language and no translation is provided.

6.                  Chiang has not provided the court with any documentary evidence supporting the list of expenses set forth in Exhibit A to his declaration, nor has he explained why he is entitled to recoup all of these expenses from Defendant.