Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV02277, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling


Case Number: 23AHCV02277    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

PETER S. DENG,

                    Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

RUI SHAN,

 

                    Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

     CASE NO.:  23AHCV02277

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

December 6, 2024

 

On October 2, 2023, plaintiff Peter S. Deng (“Plaintiff”) filed this complaint against defendant Rui Shan (“Defendant”) for libel and slander per se. Plaintiff alleges that he has practiced as an attorney from July 2021, and that Defendant published multiple false statements about him in Chinese on www.CCYP.com, the website for Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages (“CCYP”), on May 17, May 20, and May 24, 2023. (Compl., ¶¶ 2, 11-13, 16-20.)

Default was entered against Defendant on January 31, 2024. On February 27, 2024, the Court scheduled a default prove-up hearing for July 8, 2024. Plaintiff then failed to appear at the prove-up hearing. Therefore, the hearing was continued to October 7, 2025.

On October 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed this motion for summary judgment or in the alternative, for summary adjudication of each of the two causes of action alleged in his Complaint.

The Court sets an OSC re: Why Default Should Not Be Vacated for ___________ at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 because there is no proof of service on record showing that Defendant was served with a statement of damages as required for actions involving personal injury, nor is there any specific amount of damages alleged in the Complaint. (See Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1528-1529; Julius Schifaugh IV Consulting Services, Inc. v. Avaris Capital, Inc. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1393.)

The hearing on this summary judgment motion is CONTINUED to _____ because if Plaintiff’s entry of default is determined to be correct, the motion for summary judgment/adjudication would be improper and of no value because: (1) the Court would lack jurisdiction to do anything other than rule on a motion for relief from default or enter default judgment and (2) the entry of default constitutes an admission of all material allegations of the Complaint, therefore no triable issues of material fact would exist. (See W.A. Rose Co. v. Municipal Court of Oakland-Piedmont Judicial District, County of Alameda (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 67, 72; Vasey v. California Dance Co., Inc. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 742, 749.)

The Court additionally orders Plaintiff to ensure that his correct address is on file with the Court because there have been multiple instances of returned mail. The Court notes that the current mailing address on file with the Court is 248 Saint Francis St., San Gabriel, CA 91776, while the address on the caption page of Plaintiff’s moving papers is 123 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 107, San Gabriel, CA 91776.

Dated this 4th day of December, 2024

 

 

 

 

       William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

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.