Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 19PSCV00397, Date: 2022-07-28 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. R at 909-802-1117 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 19PSCV00397    Hearing Date: July 28, 2022    Dept: R

Mark Liu v. Xuefan Liu (19PSCV00397)

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Mark Liu’s Application for Default Judgment

Tentative Ruling

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

Background   

Plaintiff Mark Liu (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: On or about March 2019, Plaintiff and Defendant Xuefan Liu (“X. Liu”) entered into an oral contract, wherein Defendant agreed to wire funds that Plaintiff provided to Defendant to an account at JP Morgan Chase Bank. Defendant failed to wire $930,000.00 of these funds.

On May 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against X. Liu, Shi Qiang Zhang (“S. Zhang”), Lina Zhang (“L. Zhang”) and Does 1-10 for:

1.      Breach of Contract

2.      Fraud

3.      Conversion

4.      Common Counts (i.e., Money Had and Received)

On November 9, 2019, X. Liu’s and S. Zhang’s defaults were entered. On July 23, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed L. Zhang, without prejudice.

On September 1, 2020, the court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s application for default judgment.

On March 15, 2022, Plaintiff re-filed its application for default judgment.

Discussion

Previously, the court noted the following defects:

1.      Plaintiff, in his FAC, alleges that the oral contract was made between Plaintiff and X. Liu; however, Plaintiff, in his declaration, asserts that the oral contract was between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and X. Liu and S. Zhang, on the other hand. It is unclear how S. Zhang, then, was involved in the transaction. Plaintiff is requested to explain this discrepancy.

2.      Plaintiff does not provide the court with any documentary evidence in support of his claims.

3.      Plaintiff’s request for $300,000.00 in lost profit damages is unsupported.

Here, Plaintiff has not cured any of the defects. Moreover, all the exhibits are in Chinese, which the court is unable to translate.

Therefore, the application is again denied without prejudice.