Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20GDCV00606, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20GDCV00606    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On July 27, 2020, plaintiff Alice Yuen-Ching Man (“Plaintiff”) filed this complaint against defendants Pok Man Tam (“Tam”) and Brighton Bristol, Inc. (“BBI”).  Plaintiff states that BBI is named as a nominal defendant in this shareholder’s derivative action and Plaintiff alleges Defendant was the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of BBI.  (Compl., ¶¶ 1-2.)  Along with his brother Hok Man Tam, Defendant controlled 50% of BBI’s outstanding shares while Plaintiff also held 50% of the shares as of August 2018.  (Compl., ¶¶ 5-6.)  BBI owned a restaurant located in Alhambra, California, named Scala Stone Grill.  (Compl., ¶ 7.)  Scala Stone Grill was managed by Defendant and he served a member of the board of directors for BBI along with his brother.  (Compl., ¶ 7.) 

Plaintiff alleges that beginning in or around August 2018, Defendant began to mismanage BBI and misappropriate funds and property by taking cash from Scala Stone Grill for his own personal benefit, using the corporate credit card on personal expenses, paying himself and family members a salary in excess of what BBI could afford, failing to pay creditors, and mismanaging the financial books and failing to pay taxes, and misappropriated over $50,000 in equipment.  (Compl., ¶ 8.)  Plaintiff further alleges that in September of 2019, without any notice, Defendant dissolved BBI and closed down Scala Stone Grill.  (Compl., ¶ 9.)  Defendant misrepresented that BBI’s debts and taxes had been paid, even though BBI owes back rent in excess of $50,000 and taxes to the California Employment Development Department   Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) abuse of control, and (3) unjust enrichment.  Plaintiff prays for the following damages: $50,000 for the taking of corporate property, $50,000 in excess salary to himself, $25,000 in taking of cash, reasonable attorney’s fees in the sum of no less than $10,000, and costs of suit. 

Plaintiff served BBI with the summons and complaint through the Secretary of State on May 2, 2022 and served Defendant through publication.  Default was entered against BBI on June 20, 2022 and Defendant on August 10, 2022. 

On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a request for court judgment requesting a default judgment against Defendant in the amount of $169,582, consisting of $125,000 as demanded in the complaint, $39,901 in interest, $1,541 in costs, and $3,140 in attorney fees. 

The Court DENIES the application for default judgment without prejudice for the following reasons:

1.   With the exception of the checks written by Plaintiff, Plaintiff fails to properly authenticate any of her exhibits, including the General Ledger, filings with the Secretary of State, and government notices.  Plaintiff lacks personal knowledge to provide any other information as to the exhibits’ mode of preparation which would qualify them as a business record.  Plaintiff only states she obtained the General Ledger from an unnamed “Corporations Accountant.”  

2.   Plaintiff’s request for interest is based on CCP section 3288 which provides: “In an action for the breach of an obligation from contract, and in every case of oppression, fraud, or malice, interest may be given, in the discretion of the jury.”  However, Plaintiff did not pray for prejudgment interest in her complaint.  Therefore, the request is improper.

The default prove-up hearing is continued to _________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 of the Alhambra Courthouse.  Revised paperwork should be submitted no later than 10 days before the hearing. 

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 5th day of May, 2023

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.