Case Number: 19PSCV00765 Hearing Date: January 22, 2020 Dept: J

CMC DATE: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 [No OSC set]

RE: Yu v. Wang (19PSCV00765)

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Qun Yu’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Qun Yu’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff Qun Yu (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Defendants Di Wang and Rebecca Wang

(“Defendants”) are a husband and wife team of general contractors. On September 13, 2018,

Plaintiff and Defendants entered into a remodeling contract, wherein Defendants agreed to

remodel Plaintiff’s residence located at 1132 Stichman Ave., La Puente, CA 91746 (“subject

property”) in exchange for payment of $61,000.00. On August 6, 2018 and September 13, 2018,

Plaintiff paid a total of $43,000.00 to Defendants. After the contract was executed and the

$43,000.00 was paid, Defendants made excuses to delay the project. The parties subsequently

added some conditions on the contract, per Plaintiff’s request, namely, that the project would be

started on December 24 (2018) and finished on January 31 (2019), or there would be a penalty of

$100.00 for each day delayed. Defendants conducted demolition but never returned to do the

remodeling. Defendants and Plaintiff then entered into an Agreement to Terminate the Contract

and Refund Money Paid on or about February 13, 2019, wherein Defendants agreed to refund the

$43,000.00 via installments. Defendants have only paid back about $9,000.00. Plaintiff later

learned that Defendants are not licensed general contractors. Plaintiff contracted with a licensed

general contractor to complete the project and repair the defects, which estimate came out for

approximately $80,000.00. Plaintiff has had to relocate and rent for a year.

On August 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-10 for:

Breach of Written Contracts

Breach of Implied Warranty

Fraud

Negligence

On November 8, 2019, Defendants’ defaults were entered. A Case Management Conference is set for January 22, 2020.

Discussion

Plaintiffs’ Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

Plaintiff has not dismissed DOE defendants, as per California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800(a)(7).

Plaintiff has not provided a summary of the case, as per CRC Rule 3.1800(a)(1).

No declaration has been submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel, attesting as to the statement set forth in ¶12 of Plaintiff’s declaration.

Exhibit 2 (i.e., the English version of the Agreement to Terminate the Contract and Refund Money Paid) is not accompanied by a translator’s certification, nor is the original Chinese version of the Agreement attached.

Exhibit 3 to Plaintiff’s declaration is only an estimate. The images in the photographs comprising Exhibit 4 to Plaintiff’s declaration are of poor quality and cannot be discerned. Plaintiff seeks $18,700.00 as reimbursement for rent, yet only attaches a lease agreement for the term of December 1, 2017-November 30, 2018 as proof thereof. (Plaintiffs’ Decl., ¶15, Exh. 5.) The parties’ first contract, however, was made in September 2018.

Exhibits 1 and 2 appear to be signed by Plaintiff and Defendant Di Wang only. It is unclear how Rebecca Wang is personally liable.

Plaintiff seeks $2,500.00 in attorney’s fees as per Judicial Council Form CIV-100, but does not provide a basis for same.

ANALYSIS

Yes (11/8/19) Default Entered. (JC Form CIV-100.)

Yes Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an

application for separate judgment against specified parties under CCP

579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment. (CRC 3.1800(a)(7).)

Yes Mandatory Judicial Council Form CIV-100. (CRC 3.1800(a).)

Yes Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.)

No Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

Yes Declarations in support of the judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(2).)

No Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.)

N/A __ _______ Interest computations. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(3); 10% for contracts – Civ. Code 3289.)

Yes Memorandum of costs and disbursements. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(4); JC Form CIV-100 item 7.)

Yes Declaration of nonmilitary status for each defendant. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(5); JC Form CIV-100 item 8.)

Yes Proposed form of judgment. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(6).)

N/A Statement of Damages served (P.I./wrongful death). (JC Form CIV-050; CCP 425.11.)

N/A Punitive Damages are supported. Info re Defendant’s financial status. (CCP 425.115)