Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 22PSCV01039, Date: 2023-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22PSCV01039    Hearing Date: May 1, 2023    Dept: L

Plaintiff Gentle Carman Auto’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

Plaintiff Gentle Carman Auto (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff is a used car dealer. On or around July 14, 2021, Plaintiff contacted Surong Jiang (“Jiang”), the owner and managing officer of Euro M Tech Transmissions (“Euro”), for repair of a 2018 BMV 530E (“BMW”). Jiang quoted Plaintiff $4,800 for the repair, which Plaintiff paid. The BMW has remained in Euro’s possession since July 2021. On September 24, 2021, Plaintiff contacted Jiang for repairs on a 2015 Maserati (“Maserati”). Jiang quoted Plaintiff $3,500 for the repair. The Maserati has remained in Euro’s possession since September 2021. Plaintiff has made numerous inquiries about the repairs, but has only received excuses. Jiang and Euro refuse to return the BMW and Maserati to Plaintiff.

On January 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), asserting causes of action against Jiang, Euro and Does 1-10 for:

1.      Breach of Contract

2.      Conversion

On March 3, 2023, Jiang’s and Euro’s defaults were entered.

A Case Management Conference is set for May 1, 2023.

Discussion

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

1.      Paragraph 2(d) of Judicial Council Form CIV-100 suggests that Plaintiff is not seeking

to recoup costs; however, Plaintiff subsequently identifies, in Paragraph 7, that costs in the amount of $435.00 have been incurred. Plaintiff is requested to provide clarification as to whether or not costs are sought.

2.      Page 1 of Exhibit 1 attached to the Declaration of Yifan Hou (“Hou”) is of extremely

poor quality. Plaintiff is instructed to provide the court with a better quality copy of same, to the extent one exists.

3.      Hou fails to provide the court with any evidentiary support or sufficient basis for personal knowledge for the statements made in

Paragraphs 13 and 14 of his declaration.

4.      It is unclear how Jiang is personally liable. Hou attests that Jiang is Euro’s owner and

the managing officer (Hou Decl., ¶ 4) but fails to provide any evidentiary support or basis for personal knowledge for this statement. Jiang has not been sued on an alter ego theory. Hou has not provided any corroborating evidentiary support for his statement that he paid $4,800.00 to Jiang’s personal account (Id., ¶ 6.).