This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/02/2019 at 01:46:02 (UTC).

RUDE COSMETICS INC VS HONG KONG M&K LIMITED ET AL

Case Summary

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.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****1803

  • Filing Date:

    04/11/2018

  • 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

Petitioner and Plaintiff

RUDE COSMETICS INC.

Defendants and Respondents

A.S.K. TRADE INC.

HONG KONG M&K LIMITED

KAIROS PACIFIC INC.

DOES 1 TO 10

 

Court Documents

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

6/11/2018: REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF A.S.K. TRADE, INC. AGAINST KAIROS PACIFIC, INC.

7/2/2018: CROSS-COMPLAINT OF A.S.K. TRADE, INC. AGAINST KAIROS PACIFIC, INC.

FIRST AMENDED ANSWER OF A.S.K. TRADE, INC. TO COMPLAINT OF RUDE COSMETICS, INC.

7/12/2018: FIRST AMENDED ANSWER OF A.S.K. TRADE, INC. TO COMPLAINT OF RUDE COSMETICS, INC.

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

8/16/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANT HONG KONG M&K LIMITED

8/24/2018: AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANT HONG KONG M&K LIMITED

NOTICE OF RULING

9/4/2018: NOTICE OF RULING

REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

9/13/2018: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Case Management Statement

1/14/2019: Case Management Statement

Opposition

5/1/2019: Opposition

Declaration

5/1/2019: Declaration

Notice

5/8/2019: Notice

Objection

5/10/2019: Objection

Response

5/10/2019: Response

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

5/17/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Notice of Ruling

5/22/2019: Notice of Ruling

Judgment

6/28/2019: Judgment

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

4/18/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;ETC

4/11/2018: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;ETC

44 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/28/2019
  • Judgment; Filed by A.S.K. Trade, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/24/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 56; Jury Trial - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • Request for Dismissal (- Not Entered); Filed by Rude Cosmetics, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • at 08:32 AM in Department 56; Final Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Final Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/29/2019
  • Request for Dismissal; Filed by A.S.K. Trade, Inc. (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/22/2019
  • Notice of Ruling; Filed by A.S.K. Trade, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 56; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
77 More Docket Entries
  • 06/04/2018
  • DECLARATION OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • Summons; Filed by Rude Cosmetics, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/16/2018
  • AMENDED SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Rude Cosmetics, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/11/2018
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

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.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

HONG KONG M&K LIMITED, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO.: BC701803

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION

Date: November 22, 2019

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

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