Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00365, Date: 2023-03-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00365    Hearing Date: March 3, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – NORTHEAST DISTRICT

Plaintiffs Heng Leong Lim (“Lim”) and Jadene Ung (“Ung”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendant David Brownlow (“Defendant”) for breach of contract.  Plaintiffs allege that they loaned Defendant $150,000 and that Defendant has failed to pay them back.  Default was initially entered against Defendant on September 30, 2022 and Plaintiffs submitted a default package on October 11, 2022.  However, default was vacated on October 28, 2022 due to faulty service.  Plaintiffs filed another proof of service of summons and default was entered against Defendant on December 7, 2022. 

On December 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a default package that included a statement of the case, Request for Court Judgment on Form CIV-100, a request to dismiss Does 1-10, and declarations from Lim and Plaintiffs’ attorney, Timothy R. Casey.  A proposed judgment on Form JUD-100 was filed on December 22, 2022 but marked as rejected on December 28, 2022. 

Plaintiffs request a judgment of $214,613.20, consisting of $150,000 for the promissory note, $58,995.20 in interest, $618 in costs, and $5,000 in attorney’s fees.  Lim declares that he and his wife, Ung, entered into an agreement with Defendant on January 9, 2019 and agreed to lend Defendant $150,000.  (Lim Decl., 1:23-26.) Defendant was supposed to begin repayments on February 9, 2019; however, he has failed to make any payments and the entire balance plus interest remains due.  (Lim Decl., 1:26-27.) 

The Court cannot presently grant the requested judgment due to the following issues:

1)   LR 3.204 states, “An application for default judgment on a written obligation to pay money must, unless otherwise ordered, be accompanied by the original writing for cancellation pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1806.)  The promissory note is not attached or authenticated to Lim’s declaration, and Lim does not explain whether the original is lost or destroyed.  (Kahn v. Lasorda's Dugout, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1124 [“[O]ther than a situation in which the trial court did not believe that an original document was in fact lost or destroyed, it is difficult to imagine a court not exercising its discretion to allow the use of a copy in a default proceeding, where by definition no party has interposed an objection to the copy.”])

2)   The proposed judgment does not indicate how much of the judgment each plaintiff will receive.   

3)   Attorney fees must be determined in accordance with Local Rule 3.214.  Mr. Casey’s declaration only lists billing entries and does not conform with LR 3.214. 

4)   There is no calculation provided for Plaintiffs’ request for interest.  (CRC 3.1800(a)(3).) 

In light of the foregoing, the default prove-up hearing is CONTINUED to May 3, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.  All supporting paperwork must be filed no later than 2 weeks before the hearing date.

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 3rd day of March, 2023