On 04/11/2018 a Contract - Other Contract case was filed by RUDE COSMETICS INC against HONG KONG M K LIMITED in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
RUDE COSMETICS INC.
A.S.K. TRADE INC.
HONG KONG M&K LIMITED
KAIROS PACIFIC INC.
DOES 1 TO 10
6/11/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
7/2/2018: CROSS-COMPLAINT OF A.S.K. TRADE, INC. AGAINST KAIROS PACIFIC, INC.
7/12/2018: FIRST AMENDED ANSWER OF A.S.K. TRADE, INC. TO COMPLAINT OF RUDE COSMETICS, INC.
8/16/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT
8/24/2018: AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANT HONG KONG M&K LIMITED
9/4/2018: NOTICE OF RULING
9/13/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
1/14/2019: Case Management Statement
5/17/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore
5/22/2019: Notice of Ruling
4/18/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
4/11/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;ETC
Judgment; Filed by A.S.K. Trade, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 09:30 AM in Department 56; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Request for Dismissal (- Not Entered); Filed by Rude Cosmetics, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:32 AM in Department 56; Final Status Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Request for Dismissal; Filed by A.S.K. Trade, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
Notice of Ruling; Filed by A.S.K. Trade, Inc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - HeldRead MoreRead Less
Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro TemporeRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DECLARATION OF REASONABLE DILIGENCERead MoreRead Less
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by Rude Cosmetics, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
AMENDED SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by Rude Cosmetics, Inc. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;ETCRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC701803 Hearing Date: November 22, 2019 Dept: 56
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
RUDE COSMETICS, INC., etc.,
HONG KONG M&K LIMITED, etc., et al.,
CASE NO.: BC701803
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION
Date: November 22, 2019
Time: 8:30 a.m.
The Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s previous default judgment application on the grounds that Plaintiff’s request for entry of default indicated that Plaintiff sought a judgment of $300,435.00 against Defendant Hong Kong M&K Limited (“M&K”) yet Plaintiff’s request for court judgment form indicated that judgment was to be entered in the amount of $650,435.00 against M&K.
Plaintiff’s re-submitted materials still do not allow the Court to award Plaintiff’s requested default judgment in the amount of $650,430.00 with respect to M&K. There still exists a discrepancy in the two forms. The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel, Gregory Kim (“Kim”), filed on October 11, 2019 states that: (1) Plaintiff filed a request for entry of judgment on August 1, 2019 and that request was denied because a discrepancy existed in two forms—on the request for court judgment for and the request for the entry of default form (Kim Decl. at ¶ 2); (2) $650,430.00 is the correct amount of judgment sought by Plaintiff and Plaintiff demanded an amount of no less than $300,000.00 in the complaint (Id. at ¶ 3 and Exhibit A); (3) the amount of $300,435.00 sought in section 2 of the request for entry of default form is a mistake and should be stricken (Id. at ¶ 3); and (4) he submitted an amended request for entry of default judgment form. (Id. at ¶ 4.) The amended request for entry of default judgment form that Kim submitted on October 11, 2019 does not indicate an amount of judgment to be entered as that section of the form is blank. Thus, the discrepancy in amounts still exists with respect to the request for court judgment form and the amended request for entry of default judgment form that was filed on October 11, 2019. The defect has not been cured.
Plaintiff’s default judgment application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated this 22nd day of November 2019
Hon. Holly J. Fujie
Judge of the Superior Court