Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case 20PSCV00638 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 20PSCV00638, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20PSCV00638 Hearing Date: October 26, 2022 Dept: A

Plaintiff Astar Distribution, LLC’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Astar Distribution, LLC’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

In this breach of contract action, Plaintiff Astar Distribution, LLC entered into a contract with Defendants Ash USA Traders, LLC (Ash USA Traders) and Ashraf Bawa (Bawa) in which Plaintiff agreed to purchase 3,600,000 gloves from Defendants for a price of $270,000. After Plaintiff paid a deposit of $67,500, it received a bill of lading that it alleged was fraudulent. Ultimately, Plaintiff alleges Defendants never provided the gloves and refused to return its deposit. On September 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants and Does 1-20, alleging the following causes of action:

1. Breach of Contract

2. Unfair Business Act

3. Fraud

4. Intentional Interference with Economic Advantage

5. Negligent Interference with Economic Relationship

6. Negligence

Status conference Re: Default Judgment is set for October 26, 2022.

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a judgment after a party has filed to timely respond or appear. A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1800.)

Discussion

Plaintiff’s application for default judgment against the Defendant is denied without prejudice for the following reasons:

First, Plaintiff failed to submit a declaration or affidavit in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 585. While Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a “supplemental declaration” addressing the application’s previous defects, the declaration does not provide any evidence or testimony to support the complaint’s requests for damages and does not provide evidence on Defendants’ financial condition to support punitive damages.

Furthermore, on its face, the Plaintiff’s complaint is unclear about the amount of damages. Plaintiff alleges it wired $40,500.00 to Defendants on July 24, 2020 and wired $27,000.00 on July 27, 2020. (Complaint, ¶ 12-13.) Plaintiff also alleged it was to complete a deposit of $13,500.00 on July 30, 2020. (Complaint, ¶ 13.)

Plaintiff alleged it discovered the bill of lauding was fraudulent on July 15, 2020, and confronted Defendants about it on July 16, 2020. (Complaint, ¶ 16-17.) Plaintiff then stated it “cancelled the second wire of deposit,” although it did not specify when and then on August 14, 2020, agreed with Defendants to pay the remainder of the contract amount upon successful delivery “minus the $67,500 deposit.” (Complaint, ¶ 20-21.) It is unclear if the cancelled second wire was the $27,000 on July 27 or $13,500 on July 30. While the “minus the $67,500 deposit” seems to imply Plaintiff cancelled the July 30 wire, it could also be interpreted to mean that Plaintiff cancelled the July 27 wire and then paid the deposit on August 14 after assurances from the Defendants or could be a typo. To add confusion, in the prayer for relief, Plaintiff only requests restitution in the amount of $40,000. In either circumstance, clarity from a declaration was not provided.

Thus, the Plaintiff’s application for a default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.