Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 21PSCV00787, Date: 2022-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00787    Hearing Date: October 24, 2022    Dept: A

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment

Tentative Ruling

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

Background

This is a breach of contract case. Plaintiff JIAJIN SHI (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following against Defendant HUIRONG DAI (“Defendant”): On October 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in the case entitled Jiajin Shi v. Huirong Dai, etc., et al. (Case No. 18GDCV00067) wherein Plaintiff alleged Defendant owed $15,370,324.43 on unpaid loan(s). Thereafter, on February 5, 2019, both parties signed an agreement (“Agreement”) whereby the case was dismissed, and Defendant agreed to start paying back the amount he owed. However, Defendant has not commenced payments.

On August 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant action for Breach of Contract.

On April 26, 2022, default was entered against Defendant.

On August 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant application for entry of default judgment.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has failed to timely answer after being properly served.  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; (7) 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; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800.) 

Discussion

Plaintiff seeks entry of default judgment against Defendant in the amount of $15,371,368.43.  

Here, however, the application fails because Plaintiff has provided no evidence aside from Plaintiff’s self-serving declaration. Moreover, Plaintiff in both its complaint and declaration states that the Agreement can be found as “Exhibit A” but neither document has an “Exhibit A.”

Therefore, absent evidence of the Agreement which this very action is based upon, the application fails.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application is DENIED without prejudice.