Case Number: 19PSCV00116 Hearing Date: February 14, 2020 Dept: J

OSC DATE: Tuesday, January 14, 2020

RE: Yoon v. Yoo, et al. (19PSCV00116)

______________________________________________________________________________

Plaintiff Hwanshik Yoon aka Kevin Yoon’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Hwanshik Yoon aka Kevin Yoon’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff Hwanshik Yoon aka Kevin Yoon (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: sometime around

December 2017, Plaintiff and Ellen Eun Yoo (“E. Yoo”) entered into an oral agreement whereby

Plaintiff would invest capital in E. Yoo’s business, Caffe Bene, thereby converting the Café

Bene store to The Mugs (“Mugs”) coffee shop. Plaintiff and E. Yoo further contemplated that

Plaintiff and E. Yoo would devote their own personal time and energy in the Mug, wherein

Plaintiff would focus on drinks and marketing efforts while E. Yoo would make pastries and

desserts. Between March 2018 and September 1, 2018, Plaintiff invested over $150,000.00 in the

business. On or about August 22, 2018, Plaintiff and E. Yoo agreed to amend the Statement of

Information for CJME, Inc. (“CJME”), which E. Yoo had incorporated on November 13, 2017.

Since CJME was not actively involved in business, Plaintiff and E. Yoo agreed that CJME

would be used in operation of the Mugs. In amending CJME, E. Yoo remained as the CEO while

Plaintiff was named as its CFO and Secretary. On September 1, 2018, Mugs opened for business.

In October 2018, Plaintiff discovered that the cash deposit box for daily sales was empty; when

he subsequently contacted E. Yoo, E. Yoo stated that she wholly owned Mugs and demanded

that Plaintiff leave the business premises immediately. Plaintiff then discovered that a police

report has been filed against him by E. Yoo, alleging that Plaintiff has stolen money from the

business. On November 6, 2018, E. Yoo unilaterally amended CJME’s Statement of Information,

naming Soonbo Yoo (“S. Yoo”) as CJME’s CEO, CFO and Secretary. Additionally, E. Yoo

received $85,000.00 from an individual named Pilju Park (“Park”) sometime prior to December

2017 . E. Yoo falsely told Park, when Park requested return of the money, that Plaintiff had used

it. E. Yoo also informed employees of Mugs that the police was looking for Plaintiff because “he

was a fraud.”

On January 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants

E. Yoo, S. Yoo, CJME and Does 1-10 for:

Breach of Oral Contract

Intentional Misrepresentation

Defamation

Quantum Meruit

Unjust Enrichment

Conspiracy to Defraud

On May 23, 2019, E. Yoo’s, S. Yoo’s and CJME’s defaults were entered.

A Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for January 14, 2020.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

Plaintiff seeks $158,213.04 as the “demand of complaint” set forth on Judicial Council Form CIV-100; however, the prayer of Plaintiff’s complaint generically refers to “[g]eneral damages according to proof,” “[s]pecial damages according to proof,” “[p]unitive damages according to proof,” “[r]estitution in an amount according to proof,” “[r]easonable attorneys fee [sic] according to proof,” “[c]ost of the suit herein incurred” and “[a]ny other and further relief the court considers proper.” The only specific monetary figure allegedly owed to Plaintiff (i.e., $150,000.00) is set forth in the body of the complaint (i.e., see Complaint, ¶¶13, 23, 26, 29, 31 and 34). In actions for money damages a default judgment is limited to the amount demanded in the complaint.(See Greenup v. Rodman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.) The amount demanded in the complaint is determined both from the prayer and from the damage allegations in the complaint. (National Diversified Services, Inc. v. Bernstein (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 410, 417-418).

Plaintiff has not submitted declarations from Park, Erick Kim and Hanna Ham.

Plaintiff has not provided receipts and/or copies of cancelled checks and/or any other documentary proof substantiating his position that “[b]etween December 2017 and September 2018, [he] invested approximately $153,831.60 in the MUGS business. Particularly, $57,256.96 was paid for construction, $3,350.00 for the designer and architect, ($1,751.80 for permits and related fees, $4,000.00 for signage, $880.85 for equipments, $46,428.14 for rents and accrued interest, $18,695.07 for operation, and $13,660.95 and $7,807.83 for August 2018 and September 2018 expenses.” (Plaintiff’s Decl., ¶11.) Exhibit K, for instance, contains a proposal from PK Construction & Development for $50,000.00 and a statement from Rowland Height Plaza, Inc. with a handwritten notation stating “$13,928.14 paid;” however, there is no actual proof of payment by Plaintiff. There are invoices from esom, an Agreement for Professional Services from Entheos Design and invoices from the County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Link Points, Ellen Sweets, David Chun, CPA, Action Sales and for “AC fix,” in addition to other entities, but again, no evidence of proof of payment by Plaintiff. Plaintiff attaches copies of cashed checks issued by his corporation, Teo Consulting Group Inc., but sometimes does not provide any explanation as to what these payments were for.

It is unclear how Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees.

No calculation of interest has been provided.

ANALYSIS

Yes (5/23/19) 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).)

No Relief sought is within amount of prayer of complaint or statement of damages. (Due Process; Greenup, supra, 42 Cal.3d 822 at 824.)

Yes _____ 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.)

No 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 MC-010; CCP 425.11.)

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