Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV35834, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.
If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.
2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.
3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
Case Number: 22STCV35834 Hearing Date: March 22, 2024 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: March
22, 2024
CASE NAME: Yuxin
An v. Best All Inc, et al.
CASE NO.: 22STCV35834
DEFAULT
PROVE UP
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff
Yuxin An
RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of March 19, 2024
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. Default
Judgment against Defendants Best All, Inc., Jian Pang, and Kuangkuo Jan.
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Request
for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice or CONTINUED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On November 10, 2022, Plaintiff Yuxin An (Plaintiff) filed a
Complaint against Defendants Best All, Inc. and Jian Pang (Defendants) with
causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) General
Negligence, and (4) Intentional Tort.
According to the Complaint, the parties entered into a
contract to remodel Plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff alleges the work was
substandard and Defendants promised to reimburse Plaintiff $131,132.59 by July
31 2022. They did not do so. Plaintiff further alleges to have spent
$250,000.00 to redo the defective work. Plaintiff further alleges that
Defendants fraudulently told her they used those funds to purchase windows when
they had not done so.
On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed proof of service as to
Defendant Best All, Inc. indicating substituted service on December 1, 2022.
On February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of
Default as to Defendant Best All, Inc. which was entered that date.
On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Fictitious Name
Amendment changing DOE 1 to Kuangkuo Jan.
On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed Proof of Publication as
to Defendant Jian Pang.
On October 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of
Default as to Defendant Jian Pang, which was entered that date.
On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed Proof of Publication
as to Defendant Kuangkuo Jan.
On December 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of
Default as to Defendant Kuangkuo Jan which was entered that same date.
On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant Request for
Court Judgment package.
LEGAL STANDARD:
CCP § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has
failed to timely answer after being properly served. 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; (7) 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; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if
allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (CRC Rule 3.1800.)
ANALYSIS:
Proof of Service/Default: Defendant Best All, Inc.
was served via substituted service on December 1, 2022. Default was entered on
February 14, 2023. Defendant Pang was served via publication on August 24,
2023. Default was entered on October 3, 2023. Defendant Jan was served via
publication on November 13, 2023. Default was entered on December 28, 2023.
SUBMITTED: CRC 3.1800
|
Damages |
$ 608,069.46 |
|
Punitive Damages |
$ 0 |
|
Interest |
$ 0 |
|
Attorneys’ fees |
$ 0 |
|
Costs |
$ 1,823.09 |
|
TOTAL |
$ 609,892.55 |
|
Other relief requested |
None |
Problems:
Plaintiff did not dismiss the remaining DOE defendants.
CONCLUSION:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
1. Request
for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice or Continued.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 22, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court
[1]
While there is not a separately-filed Summary of the Case, there is a summary
of the case in the supporting declaration of Yuxin An.
[2]
Plaintiff submitted one proposed judgment for each Defendant.