Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01615, Date: 2023-05-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01615    Hearing Date: May 18, 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 CONTINUED to date to be set at the hearing.

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 an application for default judgment that was denied by the court on March 30. On April 24, Plaintiff filed the present application for default judgment.

An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for May 18, 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 $70,290, including $61,940 in damages, $7,700 in attorney fees, and $650 in costs.¿Because Plaintiff has not submitted a complete default judgment application, the court will CONTINUE the hearing on Plaintiff’s application.

Here, on May 1, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a declaration in support of Plaintiff’s default judgment application. While the declaration includes what appears to be statements from Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel, Plaintiff failed to sign the declaration and counsel’s signature was not accompanied by the required language in Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5. Thus, the court finds Plaintiff’s default packet is incomplete as the accompanying declaration is not code compliant.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is CONTINUED to a date to be set at the hearing.