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.
****6381
07/07/2016
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
ZHOU TIE JUN
STYLISH HARDWOOD INC.
ROES 1 THROUGH 20
DU HONG
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
LEXINT LAW GROUP APLC
CHUNG BRYON YOONSUK
ECHEVARRIA JOSEPH MICHAEL
WU SAM XIONG-JIE
1/3/2018: SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1/3/2018: AMENDED CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
2/28/2018: Minute Order
3/13/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
5/24/2018: NOTICE OF RULING FOR MAY 23, 2018 OSC RE: ENTRY OF DEFAULT FOR DEFENDANTS HARDY YUE AND YD DECORATION, INC.
7/24/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE: JULY 23, 2018 HEARING ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DEFAULT JUDGMENT & STATUS CONFERENCE
8/30/2018: JOINT STIPULATION OF ALL PARTIES TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND ALL PRETRIAL DATES RELATED THERETO, ETC
12/6/2018: Minute Order
2/5/2019: Minute Order
3/29/2019: Notice of Ruling
3/29/2019: Request for Dismissal
3/29/2019: Minute Order
7/22/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
7/29/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
8/5/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
9/28/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
10/6/2016: PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANT TIE JUN ZHOU'S ANSWER TO THE CROSS COMPLAINT
1/11/2017: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
at 2:48 PM in Department 40; Court Order
at 2:43 PM in Department 40; Court Order
at 2:43 PM in Department 40; Court Order
at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (Settlement) - Not Held - Vacated by Court
at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Order to Show Cause Re: (entry of default judment) - Not Held - Vacated by Court
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)
Request for Dismissal; Filed by CHEN WEI (Defendant); Liu Qing (Defendant); Yong Dong, Inc.a Calif Corp (Defendant)
at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Status Conference - Held
Request for Dismissal; Filed by Tie Jun Zhou (Plaintiff)
Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Tie Jun Zhou (Plaintiff)
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS
Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Tie Jun Zhou (Plaintiff)
PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
PLAINTIFF S COMPLAINT: 1. BREACH OF ORAL JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT; ETC
SUMMONS
Complaint; Filed by null
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
On September 28, 2016, Cross-Defendants were served the cross-complaint and summons via substituted service at via mail at 20885 Carrier Road, Walnut, CA 91789.
[X] DECLARATION OF MAILING -- Request for Entry of Default to Defendant (CCP § 587)
Mailed to Cross-Defendants at 20885 Carrier Road, Walnut, CA 91789 on July 9, 2019.
[X] NO PENDING MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT
[X] SUMMARY OF CASE PROVIDED (CRC 3.1800(a)(1)) - or other declaration OK [ ]
No summary of case provided.
[X] EVIDENTIARY DECLARATIONS/OTHER EVIDENCE (CRC 3.1800(a)(2))
A declaration from Wei has been provided. Wei states that he seeks $5,000 from Cross-Defendants their conversion of the flooring materials, $143,000 in monetary capital, and 100,000 in outstanding credit card debts. (Decl. Wei.)
[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)
No declaration provided.
[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.