Judge Wesley L. Hsu, Case 21PSCV01054 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 21PSCV01054, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV01054 Hearing Date: March 30, 2023 Dept: L

Plaintiff Claire Yi’s Application for Default Judgment [i.e., against Base FX, Inc.,

Production Capital LLC, Production Capital Corp., Production Capital Entertainment,

Inc. and Kevin W. Robel only] is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff Claire He Yi (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff loaned $400,000.00 to Daniel W. Kennedy, IV (“D. Kennedy”) and Juliet Ru-Yi Chung (“Chung”), by and through Kennedy

Capital Partners International, Inc. (“Kennedy Capital”), to purportedly fund the production of television and film projects. Plaintiff has not been repaid.

On December 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against D. Kennedy, Chung, Diana Yi Wei Cheng (“Cheng”), Rosemary Kennedy (“R. Kennedy”), Vanessa Yao Guo (“Guo”), Hongmei Jin (“Jin”), Kennedy Capital, Gosdom Inc., Gosdom Entertainment Inc., Gosdom Entertainment LLC, Gosdom Entertainments, LLC, Base FX, Inc., Production Capital LLC, Production Capital Corp., Production Capital Entertainment, Inc., Kevin W. Robl (“Robl”, Will Yun Lee (“Lee”) and Does 1-50 for:

1. Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation

2. Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation

3. Fraud—Concealment

4. Fraud—False Promise

5. Common Law Conspiracy

6. Breach of Written Contract (Note)

7. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

8. Promissory Estoppel

9. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

10. Fraud—Constructive

11. Conversion

12. Account Stated

13. Money Had and Money Received

14. Unfair Business Practices (Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.)

15. Unjust Enrichment

On February 10, 2022, Production Capital LLC’s, Production Capital Entertainment, Inc.’s and Production Capital Corp.’s defaults were entered. On February 18, 2022, Robl’s default was entered.

On March 28, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Lee, without prejudice.

On June 16, 2022, Base FX, Inc.’s and Gosdom Entertainments, LLC’s defaults were entered. On August 16, 2022, Jin’s default was entered.

A Case Management Conference, Order to Show Cause Re: Status of Defaults and Order to Show Cause Re: Corporate Representation and Whether Defendant Gosdom Entertainment, Inc.’s Answer Should be Stricken are set for March 30, 2023.

Discussion

Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

1. Plaintiff has failed to provide the court with a brief summary of the case, as per CRC

Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(1).

2. Plaintiff has not complied with California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800,

subdivision (a)(7) (i.e., by providing “an application for several judgment against specified

parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each

judgment). Plaintiff has dismissed Does 1-50 via this instant default provide-up application.

Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Base FX, Inc., Production Capital LLC, Production

Capital Corp., Production Capital Entertainment, Inc. and Kevin W. Robel; however, the

following defendants have appeared in this case: Daniel W. Kennedy, IV, Juliet Ru-Yi Chung,

Diana Yi Wei Cheng, Rosemary F. Kennedy, Vanessa Yao Guo, Kennedy Capital Partners

International, Inc., Gosdom Inc., Gosdom Entertainment Inc. Additionally, Defendants Hongmei

Jim and Gosdom Entertainment LLC have been defaulted. A review of the complaint reflects

that Plaintiff has alleged that she loaned $400,000.00 to Daniel W. Kennedy, IV and Juliet Ru-Yi

Chung, by and through Kennedy Capital Partners International, Inc. (Complaint, ¶ 4), that Daniel

W. Kennedy, IV and Juliet Ru-Yi Chung used their mothers (Rosemary F. Kennedy and Diana

Yi Wei Cheng, respectively), their mothers’ trusts, their friends and their friends’ business “to

play roles in their scheme to defraud plaintiff” (Id., ¶ 9), and that Base FX, Inc., Production

Capital LLC, Production Capital Corp., Production Capital Entertainment, Inc. and Kevin W.

Robel each “received funds or assets that can be traced to Defendants’ unlawful acts or practices

alleged in this Complaint, and . . . has no legitimate claim to those funds or assets” (Id., ¶¶ 36-

40). The only cause of action that appears directed against the aforesaid defaulted defendants is

the fifth cause of action for Common Law Conspiracy.

If it appears that the defaulting defendant’s liability is dependent upon the answering defendant

being held liable, no default judgment is proper. (Adams Mfg. & Eng. Co. v. Coast Centerless

Grinding Co. (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 649, 655). Similarly, no default judgment can be taken

where several defendants are sued on a joint liability, and one of them answers asserting defenses

which would exonerate the defaulting defendant from such liability. (Mirabile v. Smith (1953)

119 Cal.App.2d 685, 689.)

The court will entertain any further default prove-up submission at the time of trial.

Defendants Daniel W. Kennedy, IV’s and Kennedy Capital Partners International, Inc.’s Motion for Leave to File a Cross-Complaint is TAKEN OFF-CALENDAR [see below].

Background

Plaintiff Claire He Yi (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff loaned $400,000.00 to Daniel W. Kennedy, IV (“D. Kennedy”) and Juliet Ru-Yi Chung (“Chung”), by and through Kennedy

Capital Partners International, Inc. (“Kennedy Capital”), to purportedly fund the production of television and film projects. Plaintiff has not been repaid.

1. Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation

2. Fraud—Negligent Misrepresentation

3. Fraud—Concealment

4. Fraud—False Promise

5. Common Law Conspiracy

6. Breach of Written Contract (Note)

7. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

8. Promissory Estoppel

9. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

10. Fraud—Constructive

11. Conversion

12. Account Stated

13. Money Had and Money Received

14. Unfair Business Practices (Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.)

15. Unjust Enrichment

On March 28, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed Lee, without prejudice.

On June 16, 2022, Base Fx’s and Gosdom Entertainments, LLC’s defaults were entered. On August 16, 2022, Jin’s default was entered.

Legal Standard

“A party shall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or cross-complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (a).) “Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (b).)

“A party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b). Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c) [Emphasis added].)

Discussion

D. Kennedy and Kennedy Capital move the court for an order granting them leave to file their proposed cross-complaint against Guo, Gosdom Inc., Gosdom Entertainment Inc., Gosdom Entertainment LLC and Gosdom Entertainments, LLC.

The motion is taken off calendar. The proposed cross-complaint is not directed against Plaintiff, but as to co-defendants, nor are there any cross-complaints filed in this action; as such, Code of Civil Procedure § 428.50, subdivision (a) does not apply. Further, no trial date has ever been set in this action. Court leave is not required in this instance, per Code of Civil Procedure § 428.50, subdivision (c), inasmuch as the proposed cross-complaint is being filed within the time specified in subdivision (b).