BEARINGS 2000 SALES CO VS TWEN MA

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: KC070174    Hearing Date: March 02, 2020    Dept: J

OSC DATE: Monday, March 2, 2020

RE: Bearings 2000 Sales Co. v. Ma (KC070174)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff Bearings 2000 Sales Co.’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Tentative Ruling

See below.

Background

Plaintiff Bearings 2000 Sales Co. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants Twen Ma (“Ma”) and TMSM Investment Corporation dba Twen Ma Architects (erroneously sued and served as TMSM Investment Corporation [“TMSMIC”] and Twen Ma Architects [“Architects”]) (collectively, “Defendants”) were paid more than $123,500.00 on a contract of $190,000.00 to design and obtain permits to build a warehouse located in Montclair. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants kept asking for more funds and lied to Plaintiff that preliminary approvals were obtained when they were not. Plaintiff also alleges that delays by Defendants caused increases in construction costs. On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Ma, TMSMIC, Architects and Does 1-20 for:

1. Professional Negligence/Malpractice

2. Breach of Contract 1

3. Breach of Contract 2

4. Breach of Contract 3

5. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

6. Negligence

7. Intentional Misrepresentation of Facts (Active Concealment of Material Facts)

8. Fraud (Intentional Misrepresentation of Facts)

On September 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amended proof of service, which reflected that Ma had been personally served with the summons and complaint on April 13, 2018 at 150 N. Santa Anita Avenue, Suite 410, Acadia, CA 91006 (“the Arcadia address”). On September 17, 2018, Ma’s default was entered. On October 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed two amended proofs of service, which reflected that Architects and TMSMIC had both been personally served with the summons and complaint on April 13, 2018 at the Arcadia address. On October 16, 2018, Architects’ and TMSMIC’s defaults were entered.

A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: entry of default and default judgment are set for March 2, 2020.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED as to the first, second and fifth through tenth causes of action. Plaintiff’s request for default judgment as to the fourth cause of action is DENIED, on the basis that no monetary amounts for same were set forth in the complaint.

ANALYSIS

Yes (9/17/18;

10/16/18) 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).)

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

Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

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

N/A Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.)

Yes_________ _ 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)

Case Number: KC070174    Hearing Date: December 30, 2019    Dept: J

OSC DATE: Monday, December 30, 2019

RE: Bearings 2000 Sales Co. v. Ma (KC070174)

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Plaintiff Bearings 2000 Sales Co.’s APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Bearings 2000 Sales Co.’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff Bearings 2000 Sales Co. (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants Twen Ma (“Ma”) and TMSM Investment Corporation dba Twen Ma Architects (erroneously sued and served as TMSM Investment Corporation [“TMSMIC”] and Twen Ma Architects [“Architects”]) (collectively, “Defendants”) were paid more than $123,500.00 on a contract of $190,000.00 to design and obtain permits to build a warehouse located in Montclair. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants kept asking for more funds and lied to Plaintiff that preliminary approvals were obtained when they were not. Plaintiff also alleges that delays by Defendants caused increases in construction costs. On April 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Ma, TMSMIC, Architects and Does 1-20 for:

1. Professional Negligence/Malpractice

2. Breach of Contract 1

3. Breach of Contract 2

4. Breach of Contract 3

5. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

6. Negligence

7. Intentional Misrepresentation of Facts (Active Concealment of Material Facts)

8. Fraud (Intentional Misrepresentation of Facts)

On September 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amended proof of service, which reflected that Ma had been personally served with the summons and complaint on April 13, 2018 at 150 N. Santa Anita Avenue, Suite 410, Acadia, CA 91006 (“the Arcadia address”). On September 17, 2018, Ma’s default was entered. On October 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed two amended proofs of service, which reflected that Architects and TMSMIC had both been personally served with the summons and complaint on April 13, 2018 at the Arcadia address. On October 16, 2018, Architects’ and TMSMIC’s defaults were entered.

A Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause Re: entry of default and default judgment are set for October 2, 2019.

Discussion

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

1. Plaintiff has not submitted any admissible evidence supporting its contention that the costs of construction increased to almost $84.21/square foot and that this represented a difference of $1,213,550 increase in construction costs over a 4 year period. (Zhuang Decl., ¶24; Ng Decl., 8:14-16.) Ng states that subsequent to May 19, 2017, “a more current quotation at the time was obtained that showed that the construction costs had risen by approximately $600,000” (Ng Decl., ¶9); this does not appear, however, to be attached.

ANALYSIS

Yes (9/17/18;

10/16/18); 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).)

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

Yes Summary of the case. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(1).)

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

N/A Attorney fees if supported by contract, statute or law. (CRC 3.1800 (a)(9); Local R. 3.214; open book – CC 1717.5.)

Yes_________ _ 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)