On 06/16/2015 LANA SIEU NGU filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against CITY BAIL BONDS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MARC MARMARO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
NGU LANA SIEU
CITY BAIL BONDS
HSU ROBERT C
LEXINT LAW A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
NGUYEN TON CHI
THE FOREMOST LAW GROUP APC
CHUNG BRYON Y.
NEMECEK & COLE APC
CHUNG BRYON YOONSUK
NGHIEM VAN MY
9/8/2015: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
9/18/2015: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
9/22/2015: DEFENDANTS CITY BAIL BONDS, MYLINH KHA, AND ETHAN KBA'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
10/13/2015: NOTICE OF RULING RE: THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
11/23/2015: NOTICE OF NON-RECEIPT OF PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITIONS TO THE DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE OF DEFENDANTS ROBERT C. HSU AND LEXINT LAW, APLC
12/29/2015: Minute Order
2/9/2016: Minute Order
4/6/2016: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE
5/23/2016: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
5/23/2016: SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
9/26/2016: NOTICE OF RULING RE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE
3/7/2017: NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY
6/20/2017: DEFENDANTS CITY BAIL BONDS, MYLINH KHA, AND ETHAN KHA'S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; ETC
9/27/2017: NOTICE OF RULING RE: FINAL ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' DEMURRER TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
10/17/2017: CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT 2. PROMMISSORY ESTOPPEL
11/14/2017: CROSS-DEFENDANT LANA SIEU NGU'S ANSWER TO UNVERIFIED CROSS-COMPLAINT
at 1:30 PM in Department 37; Ruling on Submitted MatterRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Ruling on Submitted Matter)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 06/07/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Motion for Order (for Court Reporter Fees and Attorney Fees Associated with Defense of Cross-Complaint) - Held - Taken under SubmissionRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs - Held - Taken under SubmissionRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs; Hearing on Motion for Order f...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 37; Hearing on Motion for Order (for Court Reporter Fees and Attorney Fees Associated with Defense of Cross-Complaint) - Not Held - Continued - Court's MotionRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Certificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Tax Costs) of 05/14/2019); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE ENTIRE COMPLAINT, OR ETC.Read MoreRead Less
Motion to Strike; Filed by Defendant/RespondentRead MoreRead Less
Demurrer; Filed by Robert C Hsu (Defendant); Lexint Law A Professional Law Corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS ROBERT C. HSU AND LEXINT LAW, APLC; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESRead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by Lana Sieu Ngu (Legacy Party)Read MoreRead Less
Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
ORDER ON COURT FEE WAIVERRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT-PERS. INJURY, PROP DAMAGE, WRONGFUL DEATH (2 PAGES)Read MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC585417 Hearing Date: July 10, 2020 Dept: 37
HEARING DATE: July 10, 2020
CASE NUMBER: BC585417
CASE NAME: Lana Sieu Ngu v. City Bail Bonds, et al.
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Lana Sieu Ngu
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, Mylinh Kha and Ethan Kha, dba City Bail Bonds
TRIAL DATE: None – Judgment entered September 16, 2019
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
MOTION: Plaintiff’s Motion to Add a Dollar Amount for Prejudgment Interest to the Judgment
OPPOSITION: June 23, 2020
REPLY: July 6, 2020 [late.]
TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. The Khas are to provide notice.
This action arises out of a bail bond agreement that Plaintiff Lana Sieu Ngu (“Ngu”) allegedly entered into with Defendants Mylinh Kha and Ethan Kha dba City Bail Bonds (“CBB”).
In the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), Plaintiff asserted three causes of action for: (1) rescission of contract, or in the alternative, restitution of money paid under void contract (duress and undue influence); (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) violation of the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). . Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint on October 17, 2017, alleging two causes of action for: (1) breach of written contract and (2) promissory estoppel.
Trial in this matter commenced to the court (Judge Cunningham) on August 6, 2018 and concluded on August 13, 2018. Defendants did not present their claims from the Cross-Complaint at trial and the Court rendered a decision in favor of Plaintiff with regard to her claim for violation of the UCL. The court entered a judgment on September 16,2019
On January 23, 2019, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees in part and awarded Plaintiff attorney fees in the amount of $1,308.00 in connection with Plaintiff’s defense of the cross-complaint. On June 7, 2019 the court awarded Plaintiff costs in the total amount of $2,381.30.
On September 16, 2019 the court entered judgment against the Khas. The minute order of the same date stated: “Court orders judgment for Plaintiff Ngu, Lana Sieu against Defendant Kha, Ethan DBA City Bail Bonds, Defendant Kha, Mylinh DBA City Bail Bonds and Defendant City Bail Bonds, A Proprietorship on the Complaint filed by LANA SIEU NGU on 06/16/2015 for damages of $38,666.00, attorney fees of $1,308.00, and costs of $2,381.30 for a total of $42,355.30.” While the judgment prepared by Plaintiff checked a box for pre-judgment interest, no amount was entered consisted with the judgment stated in the minute order.
Plaintiff now moves the court to amend the September 16, 2019 judgment (the “Judgment”) to add a dollar amount for prejudgment interest. The Khas oppose the motion.
Section 473, subdivision (b) provides for two distinct types of relief—commonly differentiated as “discretionary” and “mandatory”—from certain prior actions or proceedings in the trial court. (Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1124 (Luri).) “Under the discretionary relief provision, on a showing of ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,’ the court has discretion to allow relief from a ‘judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against’ a party or his or her attorney. Under the mandatory relief provision, on the other hand, upon a showing by attorney declaration of ‘mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect,’ the court shall vacate any ‘resulting default judgment or dismissal entered.’ ” (Ibid., internal citations and quotation marks omitted, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) “Applications seeking relief under the mandatory provision of section 473 must be ‘accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.’ (§ 473, subd. (b).) The mandatory provision further adds that ‘whenever relief is granted based on an attorney’s affidavit of fault [the court shall] direct the attorney to pay reasonable compensatory legal fees and costs to opposing counsel or parties.’ [Citations.]” (Luri, ibid.)
Civil Code section 3287 allows a party to recover prejudgment interest in either of the following situations:
“A person who is entitled to recover damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation, and the right to recover which is vested in the person upon a particular day, is entitled also to recover interest thereon from that day, except when the debtor is prevented by law, or by the act of the creditor from paying the debt.
Every person who is entitled under any judgment to receive damages based upon a cause of action in contract where the claim was unliquidated, may also recover interest thereon from a date prior to the entry of judgment as the court may, in its discretion, fix, but in no event earlier than the date the action was filed.”
Plaintiff’s notice of motion indicates that the instant motion is made pursuant to Civil Code sections 3287 and 3289. (see Motion, 1-2.) In opposition, the Khas contend that Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective because Civil Code sections 3287 and 3289 do not authorize an award of prejudgment interest by amending a final judgment entered by the court. (Opposition, 9.) Plaintiff’s motion submits no authority, and the court is aware of none, which stands for the proposition that prejudgment interest may be awarded by amending a final judgment already entered by the court.
In reply, Plaintiff appears to contend that the instant motion is actually premised upon Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivisions (a)(1) and (d). However, the court notes that Plaintiff did not raise this argument in her original motion, which only argues that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest based on Civil Code sections 3287 and 3289. Points raised for the first time in a reply brief will not be considered, as “such consideration would deprive the respondent of the opportunity to counter the argument.” (American Drug Stores, Inc. v. Stroh (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1453.
Moreover, there were several post judgment motions relating to fees and costs, and no amount of prejudgment interest was litigated in any of those motions. Plaintiff did not submit any calculation of prejudgment interest to be included in the Judgment. None of the rulings of the court included amounts for prejudgment interest. As the “damages” awarded were restitution, Plaintiff has not cited authority entitling her to prejudgment interest. The failure to include an amount for prejudgment interest was not a “mistake” by the court, as no such award had been considered by the court in rendering its judgment. Given the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is denied because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is entitled to amending the Judgment in order to add a prejudgment interest award. Having denied the motion on this basis the court does not address the remainder of the parties’ arguments.
Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. The Khas are to provide notice.
 Defendants filed a notice of appeal from this Judgment on November 12, 2019. There is no indication in the court file that the appeal is not still pending.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases