Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV01002, Date: 2022-09-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21PSCV01002 Hearing Date: September 14, 2022 Dept: R
99 SHOPPING CENTER LLC vs KAI PAN (21PSCV01002)
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs’ APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Tentative Ruling
Plaintiffs’
APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT is DENIED with prejudice.
Background
This case arises from a commercial lease agreement.
Plaintiff 99 SHOPPING CENTER LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following against
Defendant Kai Pan (“Defendant”): On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff and the
Defendant executed a written Shopping Center Net Lease (hereinafter “Lease”)
whereby Plaintiff, as Master Tenant, leased the Premises to Defendant for the
term from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2024. The Lease set forth
monthly minimum rent starting at $6,518.00 and automatic rent increases through
the term of the Lease. On or about January
1, 2020, Defendant took possession of the Premises and began to pay
rent and otherwise perform their obligations under the Lease.
(First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶11) (emphasis added and underline added) Defendant
breached the Lease because “[w]ithin the last four years, Defendant
failed and refused, despite demand by Plaintiff, to pay rent and other charges
past due and becoming due under the terms and conditions of the Lease.” (FAC ¶14) (emphasis
added). As a result, “Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount no less than $400,000.00
for back rent and other charges due through November 1, 2021.” (Complaint ¶16.)
On December 2, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant
and Doe Defendants for Breach of Lease.
On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed its FAC.
On June 23, 2022, default was entered against Defendant.
On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant application
for default judgment.
Discussion
The court finds the complaint’s allegations fail to
establish a breach of contract, precluding entry of default judgment.
As noted in the ‘Background’ section above, Plaintiff premises
its breach of contract claim against Defendant based upon the allegation that “within
the last four years” Defendant has refused to pay rent. However, such a breach
is not possible because Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was in compliance with
the Lease as of January 1, 2020. Put differently, four years has not even
passed for Defendant to be breach because four years from January 1, 2020 is
January 1, 2024, which is in the future. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff
seeks default judgment based upon a breach of lease agreement that has been
ongoing for the past four years, the complaint is deficient.