Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00151, Date: 2023-03-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00151    Hearing Date: March 30, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

On March 22, 2022, plaintiff Wen-Jing Jong (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Bay Realty Investment & Franchise, Inc. (“Bay Realty”) and James Chen (“Chen”) (collectively, “Defendants”).  Plaintiff asserts five causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. 
          Plaintiff alleges that Defendants promised significant returns on investment in land located in Lancaster, California.  (Compl., ¶ 11.)  Bay Realty was a purported professional property management company.  (Compl., ¶ 11.)  Plaintiff entered into a contract with Bay Realty to purchase shares of Happy Diamond Land, LLC (“Happy Diamond Land”) on November 28, 2006.  (Compl., ¶ 4.)  On the same day, Plaintiff also entered into a contract with Bay Realty to purchase shares of Win Win Land, LLC (“Win Win Land”).  (Compl., ¶ 16.)  These two contracts purportedly have share buyback provisions but the contracts are not attached as exhibits to the Complaint or the application for default judgment.  (See Compl., ¶¶ 15, 17 [referring to Exhibits A and B].)  Plaintiff alleges she has sent written notice to Bay Realty to repurchase her shares in Hapy Diamond Land and Win Win Land but has been unable to contact Defendants.   (Compl., ¶¶ 18-23.)  Plaintiff alleges she has suffered damages exceeding $60,000. 

Plaintiff requested entry of default on February 17, 2023, but default was not entered because Does 1-10 had not yet been dismissed.  Accordingly, the OSC re: Entry of Default/Default Judgment is CONTINUED to ___________.

The Court additionally notes other deficiencies with the application for default as follows: 

-      Plaintiff’s causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud, and negligent misrepresentation fail to state a claim because there are only conclusory allegations of the alleged misrepresentations.  Plaintiff does not identify the alleged misrepresentation or the facts that were concealed with sufficient specificity, including what was said, by whom, where, and when any representations were made.  Further, as Plaintiff only alleges that she entered into the contract with Bay Realty, there are no factual allegations supporting a claim against Chen personally.  

-      Plaintiff does not show sufficient evidence substantiating her alleged economic damages against each defendant.  She does not state the amount of shares she purchased in either Happy Diamond Land or Win Win Land, nor does she identify how many she requested Defendants to buy back. 

-      Plaintiff does not request interest as part of her prayer for relief in her Complaint.  Accordingly, her inclusion of $12,000 for interest in the judgment is improper.  If Plaintiff chooses to amend her complaint to include interest and thereby “open” up the default, Plaintiff must still include “interest computations as necessary” under CRC 3.1800(3).   

-      Plaintiff’s proposed judgment includes $6,572 for some unspecified reason.  Plaintiff must either describe the reason for this amount or remove it from the proposed judgment. 

-      Plaintiff’s request for costs is inconsistent.  No costs are identified in Item 2 on Form CIV-100, but Plaintiff’s Item 7 on Form CIV-100 includes $435 for filing fees, $5,047 for “legal document assistant”, and $1,525 for service by publication.  The proposed judgment on Form JUD-100 only requests $435 in costs. Plaintiff must consistently state the amount of costs that are requested in a revised request for court judgment on Form CIV-100.   

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.

Dated this 30th day of March, 2023