Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 22PSCV01363, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01363, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01363 Hearing Date: May 24, 2023 Dept: G

Plaintiff Yanan Zhu’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

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

BACKGROUND

This is an action for breach of contract and fraud. From September to October 2015, Plaintiff Yanan Zhu gave Defendants Luise Wei, Kang Wei, and Ke-Yu Bao (Bao) a total of $135,000 for them to invest in stocks with a promised “double return” on Plaintiff’s investment. Subsequently, Plaintiff received payments from Defendants that totaled $45,000 with the last payment coming on August 30, 2019. On November 15, Luise Wei informed Plaintiff that there would be no more payments as all of Plaintiff’s investment had been allegedly lost.

On October 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants and Does 1-15 alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, and (3) conversion. On February 8, 2023, Plaintiff’s registered process server personally served Bao and served Luise Wei and Kang Wei with substitute service in El Monte.

On April 7, 2023, default was entered against Defendants and Plaintiff submitted the present application for default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default/Default Judgment is set for May 24, 2023.

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.)

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendants in the total amount of $1,500,000, including $500,000 in damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages.¿For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice.

A party may not obtain damages in a default judgment that exceeds the amount requested in the complaint. (Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826.) In determining the maximum amount of damages allowable, “courts must look to the prayer of the complaint¿or¿to ‘allegations in the body of the complaint of the damages sought’ to determine whether a defendant has been informed of the ‘maximum liability’ he or she will face for choosing to default.” (People ex rel. Lockyer v. Brar (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 659, 667, quoting National Diversified Services, Inc. v. Bernstein (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 410, 417-418.)

Here, Plaintiff requests $500,000 in special and general damages while Plaintiff’s Complaint only requests $90,000 in compensatory damages. Because Plaintiff only requested compensatory damages for the $90,000 investment, interest on that investment, and punitive damages in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff is limited to these damages and cannot claim additional special and general damages. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd. (a) [“The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint . . . .”].) Plaintiff also provided statements of damages that were allegedly served on Defendants, although such statements appear to be missing their proof of service. (Zhu Decl., Ex. 6-8.) However, such statements are only allowed when plaintiffs are not allowed to specify the amount of damages in a complaint alleging personal injury or wrongful death. (Dhawan v. Biring (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 963, 971.)

In this case, Plaintiff’s Complaint neither alleges personal injury or wrongful death. Instead, it seeks remedy for economic harm in the form of lost investment funds. (Holmes v. General Dynamics Corp. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1437 [courts consider nature of the tort rather than type of damages alleged].) And even if Plaintiff had pled the emotional distress allegations made the default judgment packet, they would only be incidental to Plaintiff’s alleged economic harm. (Rodriguez v. Cho (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 742, 755 [emotional distress damages in wrongful termination action do not transform it into personal injury action]; see also Gourley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 121, 128 [emotional distress damages in bad faith insurance action do not transform it into personal injury action].) Thus, if Plaintiff seeks general and special damages, they must be pleaded and enumerated in Plaintiff’s Complaint and not served in a separate statement of damages.

CONCLUSION

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