Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 21GDCV00201, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21GDCV00201    Hearing Date: April 26, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On February 10, 2021, plaintiff Donald J. Matson (“Plaintiff”) and the Law Offices of Donald J. Matson (“Law Firm”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought this action against defendants Chao Li aka Chao Alex Li aka Alex Li aka Alex Li Chao, Chao Alex Li dba City Law Center, and Alex Li Xhao dba www.citylaw.com (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed on February 16, 2022, asserts causes of action for: (1) theft [Civil Code § 3344 & Penal Code § 496]; (2) theft [Penal Code §§ 484 & 496]; (3) trade libel; (4) infringement of trade name; (5) fraud; (6) indemnification; (7) conversion; (8) civil conspiracy; (9) accounting; (10) unfair business practices; (11) declaratory relief; and (12) injunctive relief.  Plaintiffs alleges Defendants used Plaintiff’s law firm name and trade insignia to practice law without a license and otherwise defraud potential clients. Plaintiffs’ FAC prays for $750,000 in compensatory damages and “at least” $2,250,000 in punitive damages.

On May 16, 2022, default was entered as to Defendants on the FAC. The Court now considers Plaintiffs’ default package submitted on March 15, 2024, in which Plaintiffs request a court judgment in the amount of $70,284.58, consisting of $50,000 in general damages, $1,221.68 in costs, and $19,062 in attorney’s fees. While the monetary judgment requested is GRANTED, the request for a permanent injunction is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Twelfth Cause of Action in the FAC did not request a permanent injunction. Instead, Plaintiff alleged that “[u]nless Defendants are immediately enjoined from using Plaintiff’s name, law firm name, and professional corporation pending the final determination in this action, Plaintiff will suffer great and irreparable harm.” (FAC, ¶ 10.) Also, the proposed judgment is ambiguously worded with respect to Plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment. The proposed judgment states that “Defendants shall immediately cease and desist using Plaintiffs’ practices, law firm and professional corporation of Law Offices of Donald J. Matson, P.C.” (Proposed Judgment, p. 2, ¶ 5.) However, in the FAC, Plaintiffs request a declaration that Defendants “cease and desist using Plaintiff’s name, law firm name. and professional corporation name.” (FAC, ¶ 100.) Accordingly, the hearing is CONTINUED to May 17, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. so that Plaintiffs may submit a revised proposed judgment correcting the language of the declaratory judgment to be consistent with the FAC and removing the request for a permanent injunction. The revised proposed judgment should be filed no later than 5 days before the date of the hearing.

         Dated this 26th day of April 2024

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.