Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 20PSCV00777, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 620-3071 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 20PSCV00777    Hearing Date: December 12, 2022    Dept: G

Plaintiff Yamadatoshi and Co., Ltd.’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Yamadatoshi and Co., Ltd.’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from an agreement to purchase N95 face masks. On August 2, 2020, Plaintiff Yamadatoshi and Co., Ltd. agreed to purchase one million 3M N95 masks from K2 Investment Group (K2 Investment) and deposited $2,860,000 into escrow with JD Escrow, Inc. (JD Escrow). Although K2 Investment never provided Plaintiff with the product, JD Escrow released Plaintiff’s payment to K2 Investment. After Plaintiff demanded a refund, Defendant Ahn Tuan La, also known as “Jack La,” promised K2 would provide a refund on September 29, 2020. Plaintiff also received assurances on October 10, 2020 from K2 Investment’s agent, Yu Seong Kim or Andrew Kim (Kim), that additional documents on the masks’ shipment would be provided. Plaintiff did not receive a refund or the masks.

On November 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, K2 Investment, JD Escrow, Julie Dao, Kim, and Does 1 to 10, alleging the following cause of action: (1) breach of written contract (against K2 Investment and JD Escrow); (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (against K2 Investment and JD Escrow); (3) money had and received (against all Defendants); (4) fraudulent conveyance (against all Defendants); (5) conversion (against all Defendants); (6) conspiracy; (7) breach of fiduciary duty (against JD Escrow and Dao); (8) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (against all Defendants); (9) concealment (against all Defendants); and (10) negligent misrepresentation (against all Defendants).

On November 17, 2022, after Defendant failed to appear for depositions and pay monetary sanctions, the court imposed terminating sanctions by striking Defendant’s general denial to Plaintiff’s complaint.

On November 29, 2022, Plaintiff submitted the present application for default judgment.  

A trial readiness conference is set for December 12, 2022. Two OSCs for default judgments and a final status conference are set for January 31, 2023. A jury trial is also scheduled for February 14.    

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default 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 seeks default judgment against Defendant, K2 Investment, VQ Trading, and VQ Global in the total amount of $2,577,250.21, including $2,110,000 in damages, $431,827.39 in interest, $22,990 in attorney fees, and $12,432.82 in costs.¿For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice. 

First, Plaintiff has failed to obtain an entry of default against the parties against whom Plaintiff is seeking a default judgment. In the court’s November 17, 2022 order striking Defendant’s general denial, the court directed Plaintiff “to proceed with a Default and Default Judgment.” The court did not enter default against Defendant on that date. On November 29, Plaintiff submitted a request for entry of default. However, the request was not approved by the court. Furthermore, even if it had been, the request only named Defendant as a defaulted party and did not request default against K2 Investment, VQ Trading, or VQ Global.

Second, Plaintiff has not established grounds for a separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579 and Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(7) of the California Rules of Court, as default judgment is not sought against all defendants in this action.

Third, Plaintiff does not provide grounds for judgment against VQ Trading or VQ Global. The complaint does not contain any allegations or facts regarding these defendants, who were later substituted in place of Doe 1 and Doe 2. All Plaintiff pled was that Doe defendants were “responsible in some manner for the events alleged” and were an “agent, employee, representative aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator of one or more of the remaining defendants.” (Complaint, ¶ 11-13.) In Plaintiff’s declaration, Plaintiff states Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Kim and K2 Investment through VQ Global. (Yamada Decl., ¶ 3.) However, the attached agreement does not list either VQ Global or VQ Trading as a party. (Yamada Decl., Ex. 1.) Plaintiff also states that K2 made false promises on two occasions through Defendant, Kim, and VQ Trading as K2’s agents. (Yamada Decl., ¶ 8.) Plaintiff provides copies of email chains in which promises to fulfill Plaintiff’s order were made by Kim, who used VQ Trading in the email signature. (Yamada Decl., Ex. 5.) Ultimately, this is insufficient to establish these two defendants are liable for the more than two million dollar judgment requested here.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.