Suretec Insurance Company v. F & F LLC et al

Filing 84

JUDGMENT by Judge Stephen V. Wilson, in favor of Suretec Insurance Company against F & F LLC, Choung Fann Yik, Ying Faung Ley in the total amount of $373,249.06 Related to: Minutes of In Chambers Order/Directive - no proceeding held,,,, 83 . See Judgment for details. (smo)

I

2
3
4

5

LANAK & HANNA, P.C.
Francis J. Lanak, Esq. [SBN 43487]
Ajay Shah, Esq. [SBN 261741]
625 The City Drive South, Suite 190
Orange, CA 92868
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

JS-6

Attorneys for Plaintiff
SureTec Insurance Company

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SVW

u
0.:

II

..:
z

Case No. EDCV 09-00680 JRG (OPX)

12

<
:c

SURETEC INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas
corporation,

13

z

o6
~
<
z

j

[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs,
v.

14

15

[Filed concurrently with Plaintiffs Notice of
Motion and Motion to Increase Judgment Pursuant
F & F, LLC a California limited liability company; to Stipulation of the Parties; Declaration ofCynthia
CHOUNG FANN YIK, an individual;
Vincent; and Declaration of Francis J. Lanak]
YING FAUNG LEY, an individual

16

Defendants.
17

18
19

20

JUDGMENT

21

Based on SureTec Insurance Company's ("SureTec") Notice of Motion and Motion to Increase

22

the Judgment Pursuant to the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment against Defendants F & F, LLC, Choung

23

Fann Yik, and Ying Faung Ley, and GOOD CAUSE appearing, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

24

DECREED THAT:

25

1.

Judgment shall be increased in favour of SureTec Insurance Company and against

26

Defendants F &F, LLC, a California limited liability company, Choung Fann Yik, an individual, and

27

Ying Faung Ley, an individual (collectively "Defendants"), and each of them, from $157,291.53 to the

28

total amount of $391,943.45., plus interest of: (a) eighteen percent (18%) per annum or (2) the highest

$373,249.06
1
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
L:\SureTee\18569\Pleadings\121017- [Proposed] Judgment.docx

rate permitted by law.
2

2.

The Judgment against Defendants, and each of them, may be subsequently increased to

3 include additional damages incurred by SureTec to resolve the Payment Bond Claims in accordance
4

with the Judgment previously entered on April 7, 2011.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED: October
, 2012
January 25, 2013

8
9

By:
HONORABLE JUDGE PRES DING

10

~

11

<i.
z
z
..::

12

o6
>.<:
..::
z
..::
.....l

14

:c

13

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
L:\SureTec\18569\Pieadings\121017- [Proposed} Judgmentdoc>: