Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01615, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01615    Hearing Date: March 30, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Qihui Yang’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

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

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of settlement action. On August 10, 2020, Plaintiff Qihui Yang entered into a written agreement with Mingwen Yao (Yao) in which Plaintiff agreed to invest $30,000 in Yao’s business, Worldyao Group (Worldyao), for a period of four months in exchange for investment profits of $15,000. After Yao failed to produce any profits or return Plaintiff’s original investment, Plaintiff filed an action against Yao and Worldyao (collectively, Defendants) on October 28, 2021. On February 23, 2022, Plaintiff and Yao entered into a confidential settlement agreement in which Yao agreed to pay Plaintiff back in the amount of $35,200. Specifically, Yao agreed to pay monthly installments of $3,000 at a fixed of interest rate of $352 until paid in full. After making five payments, Plaintiff alleges Yao stopped making any further payments despite several demands from Plaintiff.

On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants and Does 1-50, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of written agreement, (2) breach of confidential settlement agreement, (3) fraud and intentional misrepresentation, (4) promissory estoppel, (5) unjust enrichment, and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress. On November 3, Plaintiff’s registered process server personally served Defendants in Diamond Bar.

On December 12, 2022, default was entered against Yao. On December 13, default was entered against Worldyao. On January 9, 2023, Plaintiff submitted the present application for default judgment.  

A case management conference is set for March 30, 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 Defendant in the total amount of $130,727, including $109,116 in damages, $12,756 in interest, $8,300 in attorney fees, and $550 in costs.¿For the following reasons, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s application without prejudice.

First, the court notes Plaintiff’s request for $109,116 in damages ($11,560 + $47,556 special damages + $50,000 general damages) exceeds the Complaint’s demand for $70,290 (Complaint, Prayer, ¶ 2.) The default judgment application may not seek damages in excess of the Complaint. (See Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 826.)

Second, to the extent Plaintiff is requesting punitive damages, Plaintiff has not served any statement of damages. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.115, subdivision (f), “[t]he plaintiff shall serve the statement [of damages] upon the defendant pursuant to this section before a default may be taken, if the motion for default judgment includes a request for punitive damages.” Because “[a] defendant who is denied adequate notice of the amount of the default judgment that may be entered against the defendant is effectively denied a fair hearing,” a defendant must receive actual notice of the amount of damages demanded before default is entered. (Matera v. McLeod (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 44, 61.)

Last, the court notes Plaintiff’s memorandum of costs in the CIV-100 application is inaccurate as the sum of Plaintiff’s costs ($435 in clerk filing fees + $120 in process server fees) is $555, not $550.

CONCLUSION

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