This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/17/2019 at 12:09:39 (UTC).

TIE JUN ZHOU VS CHEN WEI ET AL

Case Summary

On 07/07/2016 TIE JUN ZHOU filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against CHEN WEI. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6381

  • Filing Date:

    07/07/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

ZHOU TIE JUN

STYLISH HARDWOOD INC.

ROES 1 THROUGH 20

DU HONG

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

DOES 1 THROUGH 20

QING LIU

YONG DONG INC.

WEI CHEN

YD DECORATION INC.

YUE HONGPENG AKA HARDY YUE

WEI CHEN AKA ALEX WEI

YONG DONG INC.A CALIF CORP

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

LEXINT LAW GROUP APLC

CHUNG BRYON YOONSUK

Defendant Attorney

ECHEVARRIA JOSEPH MICHAEL

Cross Plaintiff Attorney

WU SAM XIONG-JIE

 

Court Documents

SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1/3/2018: SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

AMENDED CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

1/3/2018: AMENDED CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

Minute Order

2/28/2018: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/13/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

NOTICE OF RULING FOR MAY 23, 2018 OSC RE: ENTRY OF DEFAULT FOR DEFENDANTS HARDY YUE AND YD DECORATION, INC.

5/24/2018: NOTICE OF RULING FOR MAY 23, 2018 OSC RE: ENTRY OF DEFAULT FOR DEFENDANTS HARDY YUE AND YD DECORATION, INC.

NOTICE OF RULING RE: JULY 23, 2018 HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT & STATUS CONFERENCE

7/24/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE: JULY 23, 2018 HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT & STATUS CONFERENCE

JOINT STIPULATION OF ALL PARTIES TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL PRETRIAL DATES RELATED THERETO, ETC

8/30/2018: JOINT STIPULATION OF ALL PARTIES TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL PRETRIAL DATES RELATED THERETO, ETC

Minute Order

12/6/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

2/5/2019: Minute Order

Notice of Ruling

3/29/2019: Notice of Ruling

Request for Dismissal

3/29/2019: Request for Dismissal

Minute Order

3/29/2019: Minute Order

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

7/22/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

7/29/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

8/5/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

9/28/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT TIE JUN ZHOU'S ANSWER TO THE CROSS COMPLAINT

10/6/2016: PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT TIE JUN ZHOU'S ANSWER TO THE CROSS COMPLAINT

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

1/11/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

50 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/22/2019
  • at 2:48 PM in Department 40; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • at 2:43 PM in Department 40; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • at 2:43 PM in Department 40; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Order to Show Cause Re: (entry of default judment) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Stipulation and Order (Joint Stipulation To Vacate Dismissal of Cross-Complaint As To Cross-Defendants Hong Du and Stylish Hardwood, Inc. Only); Filed by Tie Jun Zhou (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by CHEN WEI (Defendant); Liu Qing (Defendant); Yong Dong, Inc.a Calif Corp (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by Tie Jun Zhou (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
130 More Docket Entries
  • 07/29/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Tie Jun Zhou (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/29/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2016
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Tie Jun Zhou (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/22/2016
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2016
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2016
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2016
  • PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT: 1. BREACH OF ORAL JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2016
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2016
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC626381    Hearing Date: December 20, 2019    Dept: 40

DEFAULT JUDGMENT PROVE-UP CHECKLIST

(CRC Rule 3.1800)

Case Name: Tie Jun Zhou v. Chen Wei

Case #: BC626381

Hearing Date: 12/20/19, re Entry of Default Judgment

Moving Party: Cross-Complainants Chen Wei, Liu Qing, and Yong Dong, Inc.

Defaulting Party: Cross-Defendants Hong Du & Stylish Hardwood, Inc.,

Total Amount: $250,760.24

BACKGROUND: Originally Plaintiff Tie Jun Zhou (“Zhou”) filed a Complaint against

Defendants Chen Wei (“Wei”), Liu Qing, and Yong Dong, Inc. (collectively, “Cross-Complainants”) over a failed business venture. Cross-complainants then filed a cross complaint adding Cross-Defendants Hong Du (“Du”) & Stylish Hardwood, Inc. to the action. Plaintiff and Cross-complainants settled their issues and dismissed the cases against each other. Only the action against Cross-Defendants remains.

Zhou wanted Wei to invest in Yong Dong, a flooring sales and installation business. Du was Zhou’s girlfriend who had her own business, Stylish. Wei was reluctant to work with Zhou because of his volatile relationship with Du. Eventually, Zhou and Wei agreed to go into business together.

The business collapsed. Du claimed that the flooring inventory possessed by Zhou was actually hers and took it. Wei claims that while Yong Dong existed, Zhou was setting up his own company and invoicing materials and labor to Yong Dong but keeping the proceeds for himself. Wei alleges that Du and Stylish conspired with Zhou. Wei is claiming as damages the capital he invested in the company and the outstanding debt.

[X] DEFAULT ENTERED ON: 1/11/17 for Hong Du and Stylish Hardwood. Inc.

[X] MANDATORY JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM CIV-100 SUBMITTED FOR ENTRY OF COURT JUDGMENT (CRC 3.1800(a))

[X] SERVICE:

Complaint and Summons

[X] DECLARATION OF MAILING -- Request for Entry of Default to Defendant (CCP § 587)

[X] NO PENDING MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT

[X] SUMMARY OF CASE PROVIDED (CRC 3.1800(a)(1)) - or other declaration OK [ ]

[X] EVIDENTIARY DECLARATIONS/OTHER EVIDENCE (CRC 3.1800(a)(2))

[X] RELIEF PRAYED FOR IN COMPLAINT (same as requested in default?): [X] yes[ ] no

[X] Compensatory: $ 248,449.00

[ ] Damages

Special: $

General: $

[ ] Interest: $

[X] Costs: $ 2,311.24

[X] Attorney’ Fees: $

Total: $ 250,760.24

[n/a] INTEREST COMPUTATIONS (CRC 3.1800(a)(3))

[ ] ATTORNEY FEE DECLARATION -- Request according to Local Rule 3.214 or reason provided why greater fees should be allowed (CRC 3.1800(b))

[ ] Request for atty fees allowed by statute or agreement of parties (CRC

[ ] $960/$1,200 for book account claim (Civil Code § 1717.5)

[X] MEMORANDUM OF COSTS (CRC 3.1800(a)(4))

[n/a] STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (CCP § 425.11):

[ ] PI/Death Case [ ] Punitives demanded [ ] Accounting

[ ] Evidence of net worth of defendant? [ ] Yes [ ] No

[X] DECLARATION OF NON-MILITARY STATUS executed within 6 months?

Date: 7-9-19 (CRC 3.1800(a)(5); Interinsurance Exchange v. Collins (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1447.)

[X] REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF DOES (CRC 3.1800(a)(7))

[ ] If not, authority/basis for several judgment (CCP § 579)

[n/a] WAS DEFAULTING DEFENDANT A DOE? (CCP § 474) - must do one of the following:

[ ] Summons notifies defendant that s/he was served under a fictitious name

[ ] Proof of service states that the Doe amendment form was served with the complaint

[ ] Complaint amended to reflect the true defendant’s name & allegations support claim

[X] ORIGINALS Promissory note or other written obligation to pay money must be provided for cancellation by the Clerk per CRC 3.1806

[ ] If no originals, declaration explaining loss/destruction/unavailability of originals

[ ] Proposed order for Court to accept authenticated copy in lieu of original

[X] PROPOSED FORM OF JUDGMENT INCLUDED (CRC 3.1800(a)(6))

RECOMMENDATION: Deny

TENTATIVE RULING: Nine of Cross-Complainant’s causes of action contain a demand for $198.517. They are seeking $143,000 in monetary capital and $100,000 in outstanding credit card debts. However, they do not state for which cause of action each of those sums is for. They state that they seek $5,000 in conversion but that cause of action asks for damages according to proof.

Therefore, the Court will award $198,517 (the maximum amount requested in nine of the causes of action) or $245,760.24, the requested sum minus the conversion claim, depending upon if they specify what causes of action they are requesting the monies for.