Filed 8/31/26 Yayan v. Lee CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

YAYAN, INC., H053483
(Santa Clara County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 24CV452820)

v.

KATY LEE,

Defendant and Appellant

THE COURT1

Respondent Yayan Inc. (Yayan) filed a verified complaint for breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, defamation, trespass, declaratory
relief, and injunctive relief against appellant Katy Lee alleging that Lee
committed various breaches and tortious conduct while purporting to act as
the association manager of Commercial Building Owners’ Association.
Although Yayan designated the complaint as unlimited jurisdiction, pleading
that “[t]he relief sought is greater than $35,000,” the complaint did not
specify the amount of damages sought but rather stated that damages would
be proven at trial.

1 Before Danner, Acting P. J., Lie, J., and Wilson, J.
 When Lee did not timely respond to the complaint, Yayan sought and
obtained entry of default. After a prove-up hearing, the trial court entered a
default judgment against Lee in the amount of $548,527.10, which included
$351,504.24 in punitive damages. After the court denied Lee’s Code of Civil
Procedure section 473 motion to set aside the entry of default and default
judgment, Lee filed a timely notice of appeal.
After Lee filed an opening brief, the parties jointly moved for summary
reversal of the judgment. We grant the motion and reverse the judgment
pursuant to the stipulation of the parties.
I. DISCUSSION
In their joint motion, the parties request that we summarily reverse
the default judgment entered against Lee with instructions that Yayan be
allowed to file an amended complaint specifying the amount of damages
sought. The reason that the parties seek a summary reversal, as outlined in
their request, is that they agree the trial court erred in awarding damages in
an amount that exceeded the prayer for relief. (Code Civ. Proc., § 580, subd.
(a).) The parties further agree that the trial court erred in awarding punitive
damages because Yayan never served Lee with a notice of intent to seek
punitive damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.11. Accordingly,
they contend that the judgment awarding amounts in excess of those sought
in the compliant is void. (Airs Aromatics, LLC v. CBL Data Recovery
Technologies, Inc. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1013, 1018; Greenup v. Rodman
(1986) 42 Cal.3d 822, 824.)
The parties’ joint motion supports the conclusion that a summary
reversal pursuant to stipulation is appropriate under the facts of this case
and the law. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (a)(8).) For the reasons stated
in the motion, the court finds that there is no possibility that the interests of
2
nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal. Summary
reversal of the judgment would place the parties in the same position they
would be in if the appeal were successfully prosecuted to completion and
would save both private and judicial resources because it would obviate the
need for additional briefing by the parties and review of the record by this
court. The public interest is served by a speedy resolution of this appeal
because it will conserve judicial resources.
This court further finds that the parties’ grounds for requesting
reversal are reasonable. The parties correctly recognize that reversal of the
void judgment is necessary. These grounds outweigh the erosion of public
trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and outweigh the
risk that the availability of a stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for
pretrial settlement. Here, the parties did not have a chance to pursue
settlement or to litigate the matter on the merits below. Expeditious reversal
of the void judgment, especially when parties agree that further appellate
litigation is unnecessary, will enhance public trust in the courts, not erode it.
(See Union Bank of California v. Braille Inst. of America (2001) 92
Cal.App.4th 1324, 1330–1331.)
II. DISPOSITION
The default judgment and order entering default are reversed pursuant
to the stipulation of the parties. The matter is remanded to the trial court
with directions to allow Yayan to file an amended complaint. The parties
shall bear their own costs on appeal. The remittitur shall issue forthwith.

3