Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 20PSCV00333, Date: 2023-01-12 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. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.
The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.
Case Number: 20PSCV00333 Hearing Date: January 12, 2023 Dept: O
HEARING
DATE: Thursday, January
12, 2023
RE: United Food Trading, Inc. v. Sunshine Fresh
Vegetable, Inc. et al. (20PSCV00333)
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff United Food
Trading, Inc’s Application for
Default Judgment
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiff United
Food Trading, Inc’s Application
for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.
Background
This is a contracts case. Plaintiff United Food Trading, Inc (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following against
Defendants Sunshine Fresh Vegetable, Inc., GP Fresh Vegetable, Inc., and
Haoying Jang (collectively, “Defaulting Defendants”): Defendants have purchased
58 shipments of produce from Plaintiff yet refuse to pay the sum due of
$80,218.60. Further, Plaintiffs allege that “Defendant Haoying Jiang has
gone insofar as telling Plaintiff that Defendants sold the produce to the
purchaser and made money from the sale, but Defendants did not have money to
pay Plaintiff because Defendant Haoying Jiang has gambled the money he had
earned from the sale of the produce, which was provided to Defendants by
Plaintiff.”
On May 18, 2020,
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants and Does 1-10 for:
1. Breach of
Contract,
2.
Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation,
3. Fraud—Negligent
Misrepresentation
On December 1,
2020, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, adding S.J.
Distributors, Inc. as a
Defendant and re-alleging the same causes of action.
On February 18,
2021, default was entered as to HAOYING JIANG.
On June 11, 2021, default was entered as to SUNSHINE FRESH
VEGETABLE, INC. and GP FRESH VEGETABLE, INC.
On July 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant application
for default judgment seeking judgment against SUNSHINE FRESH VEGETABLE, INC.;
GP FRESH VEGETABLE, INC.; HAOYING JIANG (collectively, “Defaulting Defendants”)
in the amount of $98,256.07. Plaintiff also dismissed Does 1-10.
On May 18, 2022, the court denied Plaintiff’s application.
On July 1, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Defendant S.J.
Distributors.
On August 24, 2022, Plaintiff refiled its application.
Discussion
Previously, the court denied Plaintiff’s application for (1)
its failure to either dismiss S.J. Distributors or submit an application for
separate judgment and (2) for its failure to explain the attached
exhibits/damages.
Now, while Plaintiff has dismissed S.J. Distributors Inc.,
it still fails to provide a computation as to how it yielded the
amount of $80,218.60. Rather, similar to before, Plaintiff submits numerous
purchase orders, but does not explain how each purchase order is relevant to
the calculation of damages, and it is not the court’s duty to do so for
Plaintiff.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application is denied without
prejudice.