Xiong v. Chen CA2/4

Filed 8/28/24 Xiong v. Chen CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

JIAN XIONG, B332644

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 22STCV12214) v.

NING CHEN,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William F. Fahey, Judge. Reversed and remanded. The Green Firm and Noah Green, for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

Plaintiff Jian Xiong appeals from the dismissal of his action. Plaintiff requested entry of default judgment against defendant Ning Chen. The trial court denied plaintiff’s request and dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiff contends the dismissal was error, and we agree. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2022, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant alleging that on or about November 9, 2018, plaintiff agreed verbally and in writing to “lend” money to defendant and another individual for their business and “thereafter do business as partners.” Between November 9, 2018, and August 5, 2019, plaintiff allegedly “invested” a total of approximately $1,503,030.30 in the business. Plaintiff claimed defendant guaranteed she would repay plaintiff the “principal on all investments within four years, plus 7 [percent] to 8 [percent] interest.” Plaintiff allegedly also made a personal loan to defendant for approximately $75,757.58. As of the filing of the complaint, defendant purportedly was “in default, with an outstanding balance of principal and interest totaling . . . $1,596,969.70.” Defendant filed an answer to the complaint in October 2022. After her counsel withdrew, defendant’s answer was stricken because she failed to appear for multiple hearings and comply with court orders. Consequently, the trial court entered defendant’s default in February 2023. The court then ordered plaintiff to file a default judgment package by April 10, 2023, and lodge a courtesy copy with the court. An “Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment” (the “OSC”) was set for April 18, 2023.