Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV31639, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV31639 Hearing Date: March 1, 2024 Dept: 50
|
SOOYEON JIN, Plaintiff, vs. KEITH BAE, et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: |
21STCV31639 |
|
Hearing Date: |
March 1, 2024 |
|
|
Hearing Time: |
10:00 a.m. |
|
|
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT |
||
Plaintiff Sooyeon Jin (“Plaintiff”) requests entry of default judgment
against Defendants James Bae and Keith Bae in the total amount of $313,769.03,
comprising $313,334.03 in damages and $435.00 in costs.
The
Court notes a few defects with the submitted request for default judgment.
First, Item 6 of
the Request (Form CIV-100) is blank, and no proof of service appears to have
been filed in connection with Plaintiff’s instant request for default judgment.
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 587, “[a]n application by a plaintiff for entry of
default under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section
585 or Section 586 shall include
an affidavit stating that a copy of the application has been mailed to the
defendant’s attorney of record or, if none, to the defendant at his or her last
known address and the date on which the copy was mailed. If no such address of the
defendant is known to the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, the affidavit
shall state that fact. No default under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of Section 585 or Section
586 shall be entered, unless the affidavit is filed. The nonreceipt of
the notice shall not invalidate or constitute ground for setting aside any
judgment.”
Second, Plaintiff
did not file a proposed judgment with the instant request. The Court notes that
a party
seeking a default judgment must file “[a] proposed form of judgment.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800, subd. (a)(6).) Plaintiff’s Summary of the Case in support of the
instant request provides, inter alia, that “[t]he Summary
of the Case and the Supplemental Declaration of Plaintiff Sooyeon Jin in
Support of Request for Entry of Default Judgment relies on the latest proposed
judgments submitted on October 24, 2023, in which Plaintiff seeks a simple
judgment of $313,334.03 and not the previous judgments filed on August 31,
2023.” (Summary of the Case, p. 9, fn. 1.) However, as set forth above,
Plaintiff’s latest request filed on February 20, 2024 states that Plaintiff
seeks judgment in the total amount of $313,769.03. (See Item 2(f)
of Request.) As Plaintiff
acknowledges, the proposed judgments submitted on October 24, 2023 in
connection with Plaintiff’s previous request indicate that Plaintiff seeks a total
of $313,334.03 against both James Bae and Keith Bae.
Third, in her supporting declaration, Plaintiff states that “JAMES
BAE and I then entered into a Shareholder Agreement…A true and correct copy
of the Shareholder Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit C.” (Suppl. Jin
Decl., ¶ 3, emphasis added.) As noted by Plaintiff, Section
8.5 of the Shareholder’s Agreement provides, inter alia, that “[i]n
the event of a Deadlock, which term is defined below, Jin shall have the option
to sell her shares to Bae or purchase Bae’s Shares. a) If Jin desires to sell
her shares, Bae shall purchase her shares at 80% of either the original
purchase price or Fair Market Value as provided in Section
8.3, subsection (b), whichever value is greater.” (Suppl. Jin Decl., ¶ 3,
Ex. C; Jin Decl., ¶ 11.) The Recitals section of the Shareholder’s Agreement
provides that James Bae is “hereinafter referred to as” “Bae.” (Suppl. Jin
Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. C.)
In her supporting declaration, Plaintiff states that “I notified JAMES
BAE and KEITH BAE that I would exercise my option to sell my shares pursuant to
the Shareholders Agreement due to a Deadlock transpiring as poor mismanagement
of Birdies Norco and refusal to proportionally contribute to the emergency capital
call…created a conflict on how to conduct the business and affairs of the
Corporation.” (Suppl. Jin Decl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff asserts that “[t]he Fair
Market Value of my shares at the time of the valuation date…is $270,000.00.
However, both Defendants failed to abide by the Shareholders Agreement in
buying back my shares.” (Suppl. Jin Decl., ¶ 11.) But as discussed above, Section 8.5(a) of the Shareholder’s Agreement provides
that “[i]f Jin desires to sell her shares, Bae shall purchase her shares
at 80% of either the original purchase price or Fair Market Value as provided
in Section 8.3, subsection (b), whichever value is greater.” (Suppl. Jin Decl.,
¶ 3, Ex. C, emphasis added.) It is thus unclear why Plaintiff also seeks
$270,000.00 in damages against Keith Bae.
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request for default judgment
without prejudice. The Court will discuss with
Plaintiff a schedule for resubmission of the default judgment package.
DATED:
________________________________
Hon. Teresa A.
Beaudet
Judge, Los
Angeles Superior Court