Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. Vs. Pierre Schnebelen

Case Number: 22AHCV00898 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: 3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT DIMERCO EXPRESS USA CORP. , Plaintiff(s), vs. CONCORD DISPLAYS, LLC, et al. , Defendant(s). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 22AHCV00898 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Dept. 3 8:30 a.m. July 12 , 2024 ) Plaintiff Dimerco Express USA Corp. (Plaintiff) requests a default judgment against defendant Concord Displays, LLC (Defendant) in the amount of $24,630.97. On May 23, 2042, Plaintiff filed a declaration of counsel attaching a settlement agreement which provides for the entry of a stipulated judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. In light of this agreement, Plaintiffs attempt to secure a default judgment is procedurally incorrect. Plaintiff should be moving for entry of a judgment pursuant to stipulation and submit a proposed judgment that reflects its stipulated nature. Accordingly, the hearing on the default prove-up is vacated and the Court sets an OSC re: Dismissal for _____________ in order to allow Plaintiff time to file a noticed motion. Dated this 12th day of July , 2024 William A. Crowfoot Judge of the Superior Court Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Case Number: 23SMCV01369 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: N TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.s Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, for Summary Adjudication of Claims is GRANTED in the amount of $248,672.71. Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. shall prepare, serve, and submit a proposed judgment as per statute. Costs shall be determined by statute. Attorney fees shall be determined pursuant to a noticed motion. Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to give notice. REASONING Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) moves the Court for an order granting summary judgment or adjudication in its favor and against Defendants Sunset Art LLC (Sunset Art), Jared Najjar, and Paul C Valmorbida. No defendant has filed an opposition to Chases motion. While the moving party generally bears the initial burden of proof on its motion, and lack of opposition will not automatically entitle the moving party to prevail on its motion, a partys failure to file an opposition can be considered a concession that the motion is meritorious. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Legal Standard The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. (Ibid.) If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted. (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467 (Avivi).) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) [T]he court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection) . . . in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) Analysis Chase alleges that on March 12, 2015, Sunset Art entered into a borrowing relationship with Chase by executing a Line of Credit Note and Credit Agreement in the amount of $250,000.00. (Compl. ¶ 7, Ex. A.) On the same date, Najjar executed a Continuing Guaranty (the Najjar guaranty), guaranteeing repayment of the contract (Compl. ¶ 8, Ex. B), and Valmorbida also executed a Continuing Guaranty (the Valmorbida guaranty), guaranteeing repayment of the contract (Compl. ¶ 9, Ex. C). Plaintiff alleges Sunset Art has defaulted under the terms of the contract such that there is now due and owing to Chase $247,778.91, plus late fees and costs, and Defendants Najjar and Valmorbida have failed to cure Sunset Arts default pursuant to their guarantees such that they are also in default under the guarantees. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11.) Chase alleges causes of action for breach of express contract, money lent, and account stated. It voluntarily dismissed its money lent and account stated claims on December 15, 2023. To establish a cause of action for breach of contract, Chase must be able to establish (1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiffs performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendants breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff. (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.) Chase provides evidence that on March 13, 2015, Sunset Art entered into a borrowing relationship with Chase by executing a Line of Credit Note and Credit Agreement in the amount of $250,000.00. (Chases UMF No. 1.) On the same date, Najjar executed the Najjar guaranty, and Valmorbida executed the Valmorbida guaranty. (Chases UMF Nos. 2-3.) Sunset Art has failed to pay under the terms of the contract, has defaulted, and there is now due and owing to Chase $247,778.91, plus late fees and costs of $893.80 for a total of $248,672.71. (Chases UMF No. 5.) Defendants Najjar and Valmorbida have failed to cure Sunset Arts default pursuant to their guarantees such that they are also in default under the guarantees. (Chases UMF Nos. 6-7.) This evidence allows Chase to meet its burden of establishing that there is no triable issue of material fact as to its claims for breach of express contract. While the date of the contracts is different than that alleged in the complaint, the documents attached to the complaint showed an execution date of March 13, 2015, and it is axiomatic that exhibits control when there is a conflict between a complaints allegations and exhibits attached to the complaint. (Panterra GP, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 697, 712, fn. 13.) No defendant has opposed the present motion, thereby failing to establish that a triable issue of material fact exists as to Chases claims. Accordingly, Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.s Motion for Summary Judgment or, Alternatively, for Summary Adjudication of Claims is GRANTED in the amount of $248,672.71. Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. shall prepare, serve, and submit a proposed judgment as per statute. Costs shall be determined by statute. Attorney fees shall be determined pursuant to a noticed motion.

Case Number: 23STCV25173 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Dept: 72 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT 72 TENTATIVE RULING BANK OF AMERICA N.A., Plaintiff, v. SOO S CHO, Defendants. Case No: 23STCV25173 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Calendar Number: 10 Plaintiff Bank of America N.A. (Plaintiff) seeks default judgment against Defendant Soo S Cho (Defendant). Plaintiff requests: (1) money judgment in the amount of $86,498.84, consisting of: (a) damages in the amount of $85,995.34; (b) costs in the amount of $503.50. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs request for default judgment. Background Plaintiff is a subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. Defendant opened a credit account with Plaintiff and obtained credit from Plaintiff. Plaintiff is currently indebted to Defendant in the amount of $85,995.34. Plaintiff failed to make periodic payments as required by the agreement covering use of the credit account. The last payment occurred on February 24, 2023. Plaintiff filed this action October 16, 2023, raising one claim for common counts. On December 22, 2023, the Court entered default against Defendant. Legal Standard CCP § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has failed to timely answer after being properly served. A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Form CIV-100 Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) Proof of service of the complaint and summons; (2) A dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought (including Doe defendants) or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment (CRC 3.1800(a)(7)); (3) A declaration of non-military status as to the defendant (typically included in Form CIV-100) (CRC 3.1800(a)(5)); (4) A brief summary of the case (CRC 3.1800(a)(1)); (5) Admissible evidence supporting a prima facie case for the damages or other relief requested ( Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361-362); (6) Interest computations as necessary (CRC 3.1800(a)(3)); (7) A memorandum of costs and disbursements (typically included in Form CIV-100 (CRC 3.1800(a)(4)); (8) A request for attorneys fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties (CRC 3.1800(a)(9)), accompanied by a declaration stating that the fees were calculated in accordance with the fee schedule as per Local Rule 3.214. Where a request for attorney fees is based on a contractual provision the specific provision must be cited; (Local Rule 3.207); and (9) A proposed form of judgment (CRC 3.1800(a)(6)); (10) Where an application for default judgment is based upon a written obligation to pay money, the original written agreement should be submitted for cancellation (CRC 3.1806). A trial court may exercise its discretion to accept a copy where the original document was lost or destroyed by ordering the clerk to cancel the copy instead ( Kahn v. Lasorda's Dugout, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1124); (11) Where the plaintiff seeks damages for personal injury or wrongful death, they must serve a statement of damages on the defendant in the same manner as a summons (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.11, subd. (c), (d)). (California Rules of Court rule 3.1800.) Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(1), items are allowable as costs under Section 1032 if they are filing, motion, and jury fees. A party who defaults only admits facts that are well-pleaded in the complaint or cross-complaint. ( Molen v. Friedman (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153-1154.) Thus, the complaint must state a claim for the requested relief. Discussion Service of the Complaint and Summons According to the proof of service filed on October 31, 2023, Defendant was served on October 26, 2023 at 1718 N Las Palmas Avenue, Apartment 617, Los Angeles, California 90028, via personal service. Non-Military Status Alexander Baizer Carr avers to Defendants non-military status. Summary of the Case Plaintiff provides a brief summary of the case in the declaration of Roberta Galbreath. Plaintiff adequately pleads its cause of action in the Complaint. Evidence of Damages Code of Civil Procedure section 580 prohibits the entry of a default judgment in an amount in excess of that demanded in the complaint. ( Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 286.) Moreover, a statement of damages cannot be relied upon to establish a plaintiff's monetary damages, except in cases of personal injury or wrongful death. ( Ibid .) In all other cases, when recovering damages in a default judgment, the plaintiff is limited to the damages specified in the complaint. ( Ibid .) Moreover, a plaintiff must submit admissible evidence supporting a prima facie case for the damages or other relief requested ( Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361-362.) Roberta Galbreath is a custodian of records for Plaintiff. Galbreath avers that the submitted records showing the amount due on Defendants account with Plaintiff are contemporaneously recorded by a person with actual knowledge of the information in question and are true and accurate copies of Plaintiffs business records. Interest Plaintiff does not seek interest. Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements Plaintiff includes a memorandum of costs in the submitted Form CIV-100. Alexander Baizer Carr avers that Plaintiff expended $503.50 in costs. Attorneys Fees Plaintiff does not seek attorneys fees. Proposed Form of Judgment Plaintiff has submitted a proposed form of judgment consistent with the foregoing. Submission of the Written Agreement California Rule of Court 3.1806 states that unless otherwise ordered judgment upon a written obligation to pay money requires a clerks note across the face of the writing that there has been a judgment. Here, Plaintiff has not submitted the original documents. The Court does not discern any practical need for such a clerks note on the written obligation in the current case and therefore orders that it need not be included. If this causes any issues for any party or non-party, they are authorized to bring the matter to the Courts attention. Statement of Damages Plaintiff does not need to submit a statement of damages because this is not a personal injury or wrongful death case.

Case Number: 23CHCV00264 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: F47 Dept. F47 Date: 7/11/24 Case #23CHCV00264 MOTION TO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS ADMITTED Motion filed on 4/4/24. MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Rock Creek Capital, LLC RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Norma S. Carcamo NOTICE: ok RELIEF REQUESTED : An order deeming the truth of matters specified in Plaintiffs Request for Admissions served on Defendant Norma S. Carcamo. RULING : The motion is granted. SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY On 1/30/23, Plaintiff Rock Creek Capital, LLC (Plaintiff) filed this action against Defendant Norma S. Carcamo (Defendant) for breach of contract. On 4/4/23, Defendant, representing herself, filed an answer to the complaint. On 2/2/24, Plaintiff served Defendant, by U.S. Mail, with Requests for Admissions, Set 1. (Aguirre Decl., Ex.1). Defendant failed to serve responses. (Aguirre Decl.). Therefore, on 4/4/24, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order deeming the truth of matters specified in Plaintiffs Request for Admissions served on Defendant. Defendant has not opposed or otherwise responded to the motion. ANALYSIS Due to Defendants failure to respond to the Requests for Admissions, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming the matters admitted. CCP 2033.280(b), (c). CONCLUSION The motion is granted.

Case Number: BC682984 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Dept: 71 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 71 TENTATIVE RULING MASSACHUSETTS EDUCATIONAL FINANCING AUTHORITY , vs. ALEXANDER . Case No.: BC682984 Hearing Date: July 12, 2024 Plaintiff Massachusetts Educational Financing Authoritys unopposed motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement is granted. Plaintiff is to submit a judgment to this Court within 10 days of this ruling. Plaintiff Massachusetts Education Financing Authority (MEFA) (Plaintiff) moves unopposed for an order to enter judgment because Defendant Alexander L Ross (Ross) (Defendant) defaulted on the terms and conditions of the parties settlement stipulation. (Notice of Motion, pg. 1; C.C.P. §664.6.) Background On November 09, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court for damages in the amount of $25,149.19 to recover the unpaid balance on a credit card account. (Decl. of Rohan ¶2.) On March 22, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendant executed a settlement agreement (Settlement Agreement), with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the agreement. (Decl. of Rohan ¶3, Exh. A.) Pursuant to ¶10 of the agreement, if Defendant defaulted under the Settlement Agreement, then Plaintiff could obtain a judgment for the outstanding balance, pre-judgment interest and costs through declaration and order. ( See Decl. of Rohan ¶¶3-4, Exh. A at ¶10.) On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motion. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed by Defendant. Motion to Enforce Settlement Legal Standard C.C.P. §664.6 provides, as follows: If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement. (C.C.P. §664.6(a).) Disputes regarding the terms of the settlement (or other disputed facts) may be adjudicated on a C.C.P. §664.6 motion on the basis of declarations or other evidence. ( Malouf Brothers v. Dixon (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 280, 284; Machado v. Myers (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 779, 795-796 [stating court may resolve reasonable disputes over terms of settlement agreement but may not modify terms from what was agreed to by parties].) Discussion Plaintiff submitted evidence that Plaintiff and Defendant executed a Settlement Agreement that is signed by the parties and contains a provision authorizing this Court to retain jurisdiction under C.C.P. §664.6. (Decl. of Rohan ¶2 , Exh. A.) Accordingly, Plaintiff submitted evidence of the existence of a valid settlement agreement and is therefore entitled to an order enforcing the settlement. Plaintiffs counsel declares Defendant last made a payment on September 9, 2014. (Decl. of Rohan ¶4.) Plaintiffs counsel declares that on March 16, 2023, he last sent a cure letter to Defendant, stating that Defendant had ten days to cure the defect. (Decl. of Rohan ¶6.) Plaintiffs counsel declares Defendant did not cure the defect and Defendant has not made any other payments pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (Decl. of Rohan ¶¶6-7.) Plaintiffs counsel declares the principal outstanding balance on Defendants account is $10,552.09. (Decl. of Rohan ¶8.) Plaintiff requests a judgment against Defendant in the amount of $11,073.93, reflecting a principal balance of $25,149.19, less $14,075.26 in credits for payments made, and $0.00 in costs. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $11,073.93, reflecting a principal balance of $25,149.19, less $14,075.26 in credits for payments made, and $0.00 in costs is granted. Conclusion Plaintiffs unopposed motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $11,073.93, reflecting a principal balance of $25,149.19, less $14,075.26 in credits for payments made, and $0.00 in costs is granted. Plaintiff is to submit a judgment to the Court within 10 days of this ruling. Moving Party to give notice. Dated: July _____, 2024 Hon. Daniel M. Crowley Judge of the Superior Court

Case Number: 23STCP00079 Hearing Date: July 15, 2024 Dept: 51 Tentative Ruling Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51 HEARING DATE: July 15, 2024 CASE NAME: Pearl Beta Funding, LLC v. Lonewolf Insurance Services, et al. CASE NO .: 23STCP00079 MOTION TO SET ASIDE/VACATE JUDGMENT MOVING PARTY : Judgment Debtors Three Zero Four Zero Two Holding, LLC and Tatanisha Leer [1] RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Pearl Beta Funding, LLC REQUESTED RELIEF: 1. An Order setting aside the amended judgment. TENTATIVE RULING: 1. Motion for Order Setting Aside/Vacating Judgment is CONTINUED to September 3, 2024. The parties shall submit additional briefing consistent with the requirements of CCP § 1005(b). STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff Pearl Beta Funding, LLC (Judgment Creditor) filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment naming Judgment Debtors Lonewolf Insurance Services, Inc., El Dorado Hills Insurance Solutions Inc., Golden Foothill Insurance Services LLC, The Genesis LS Fund LLC, Life Shares LLC, KTL Holdings Inc., and Stefan Joseph Leer (Judgment Debtors). On January 12, 2023, Judgment on Sister-State Judgment was entered by the clerk. On July 14, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed an Application for Issuance of Writ of Execution, Possession or Sale for property located at 30402 Marbella Vista, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 owned by Judgment Debtor Stefan Joseph Leer. On July 14, 2023, Judgment Creditor obtained a Writ of Execution (Money Judgment) against all Judgment Debtors and filed a Memorandum of Costs after Judgment. On September 26, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed an Application and Order for Appearance and Examination of Judgment Debtor Stefan Joseph Leer. On September 27, 2023, Judgment Creditor filed an Application and Order for Appearance and Examination of Third Person Tatanish L. Leer which was granted. On January 17, 2024, Judgment Creditor filed a Return to Court Writ of Execution. On February 13, 2024, Judgment Creditor filed a instant Motion to Amend Judgment pursuant to CCP § 187 which the court GRANTED as to Three Zero Four Zero Two Holding, LLC and DENIED as to Tatanisha Leer. On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed notice of entry of the courts order on the Motion to Amend Judgment. On May 21, 2024, Judgment Debtor Three Zero Four Zero Two Holding, LLC and Non-Party Tatanisha Leer (Moving Parties) filed the instant Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment. On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. As of July 9, 2024, Moving Parties did not file a reply. LEGAL STANDARD: Set Aside CCP §¿473 The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect&¿ [The application]¿shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.¿ (CCP¿§¿473(b).) Courts must grant relief when the attorneys inexcusable neglect results in the dismissal. ( Ibid. ) Otherwise, relief under this section is discretionary. ( Ibid. ) Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), provides that the Court may, on motion of either party after notice set aside any void judgment or order. Request for Judicial Notice The court grants Judgment Creditors request for judicial notice as to Exhibits A through J. (Evid. Code § 452(c), (h); See Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23,37.) However, the court only takes judicial notice of the foregoing documents only as to the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents; it does not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents. ( Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal. App. 5th 389, 400.)¿¿ ANALYSIS : Moving Parties contend the judgment should be set aside because the amount fails to credit amounts of the judgment already paid and the motion to amend the judgment was not properly served. Plaintiff argues Moving Parties have not demonstrated, or even suggested, prejudice. As a threshold matter, CCP §¿473 does not afford the relief Moving Parties seek. ( Conseco Marketing, LLC v. IFA & Ins. Services, Inc. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 831, 844 [noting that a CCP § 473.5 motion is a procedural remedy to set aside a default or default judgment, not a sister state judgment.]) The more applicable statute is CCP § 1710.40 which provides, in pertinent part: ( a) A judgment entered pursuant to this chapter may be vacated on any ground which would be a defense to an action in this state on the sister state judgment, including the ground that the amount of interest accrued on the sister state judgment and included in the judgment entered pursuant to this chapter is incorrect. (b) Not later than 30 days after service of notice of entry of judgment pursuant to¿ Section 1710.30 , proof of which has been made in the manner provided by Article 5 (commencing with¿ Section 417.10 ) of Chapter 4 of Title 5 of Part 2, the judgment debtor, on written notice to the judgment creditor, may make a motion to vacate the judgment under this section. Service, not actual notice, triggers the 30-day limit for the judgment debtor to make a motion to vacate the judgment so long as the judgment debtor was effectively served with process in the sister state action. ( Conseco Marketing, LLC, supra, at p. 838.) However, service of the notice of entry of judgment must be done in the manner provided for service of summons and shall . . . inform the judgment debtor that the judgment debtor has 30 days within which to make a motion to vacate the judgment. ( Ibid. ) Here, Plaintiff did not adequately serve notice of entry of the amended judgment on the Wyoming LLC. [2] First, Plaintiff effected service via U.S. Mail only. (Notice of Entry of Amended Judgment, Proof of Service.) This is not one of the proscribed methods for service of summons. (CCP § 415.10(a) [personal delivery], § 415.20 [substitute service], or § 415.30 (a) [service by mail with a notice and acknowledgment of receipt].) Second, the notice does not inform the judgment debtor that they have 30 days within which to make the instant motion. ( Conseco Marketing, LLC, supra, at p. 838.) Accordingly, the court CONTINUES the instant motion to allow the parties the opportunity to provide further briefing. CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows: 1. Motion for Order Setting Aside/Vacating Judgment is CONTINUED to September 3, 2024. The parties shall submit additional briefing consistent with the requirements of CCP § 1005(b). Moving party is to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 15, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra Judge of the Superior Court [1] Contrary to Moving Parties assertion, Tatanisha Leer is not a judgment debtor. (Order Granting in Part and Denying in Party Motion to Amend Sister-State Judgment.) [2] As such, that Moving Parties filed this motion 56-days after service of the notice of entry of judgment is inconsequential. It is also questionable whether Plaintiff properly served the remaining named Defendants. While they were personally served with the original judgment on February 24, 2023, the proof of service for the notice of amended judgment is also via U.S. Mail only. Conversely, the court also notes that Moving Parties proof of service for the instant motion may be defective, too, since it is not served on the remaining Defendants.

Case Number: 23STCV07247 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: 40 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 40 SURENDRA BHAVNANI DBA LAXMI IMPEX, Plaintiff, v. GREENLEAF DIAMONDS, LLC, ANDRE SENGUL DBA GREENLEAF DIAMONDS, and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants. Case No.: 23STCV07247 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Trial Date: N/A [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Defendant Andre Sengul dba Greenleaf Diamonds, LLCs Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment On May 16, 2023, Plaintiff SURENDRA BHAVNANI DBA LAXMI IMPEX (Plaintiff) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendants GREENLEAF DIAMONDS, LLC (GDL) , ANDRE SENGUL DBA GREELEAF DIAMONDS (Sengul), and DOES 1 through 20 (collectively, Defendants). The FAC asserts the following causes of action against all Defendants: 1. Breach of Contract 2. Book Account 3. Goods Sold and Delivered On June 28, 2023, default was entered against Defendant Sengul. Subsequently, default judgment was entered against Defendant Sengul in the amount of $101,364.86 on October 20, 2023. Defendant Sengul now brings a Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment, which Plaintiff has not opposed. A proof of service is attached to the motion showing service on Plaintiffs counsel at the address on the Judgment entered 10/20/23. After review, the Court GRANTS the Motion because Defendant Sengul has shown he did not have actual notice of the action in time to defend on the merits. Background Allegations This action involves seven written contractual agreements between Plaintiff and Defendant Sengul for the sale of certain diamonds to Defendants in the amounts of $394.00, $30,294.00, $5,680.00, $17,769.00, $14,650.00, $3,300.00, and $285.00. (Compl., ¶9, Ex. 1.) Each agreement was to be paid in full within 120 days from the date of each memorandum. ( Id. ) Defendant Sengul failed to make any payments on the seven agreements resulting in a balance owed of $72,372.00. ( Id. at ¶10.) Plaintiff made a demand for payment on the balance due and Defendant Sengul has refused to pay it. ( Id. at ¶11.) Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment Legal Standard : When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against him or her in the action, he or she may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action. The notice of motion shall be served and filed within a reasonable time, but in no event exceeding the earlier of: (i)¿two years after entry of a default judgment against him or her; or (ii)¿180 days after service on him or her of a written notice that the default or default judgment has been entered. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5(a).)¿¿ ¿ A notice of motion to set aside a default or default judgment and for leave to defend the action shall designate as the time for making the motion a date prescribed by subdivision (b) of Section 1005, and it shall be accompanied by an affidavit showing under oath that the partys lack of actual notice in time to defend the action was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect. The party shall serve and file with the notice a copy of the answer, motion, or other pleading proposed to be filed in the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5(b).) ¿ Upon a finding by the court that the motion was made within the period permitted by subdivision (a) and that his or her lack of actual notice in time to defend the action was not caused by his or her avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect, it may set aside the default or default judgment on whatever terms as may be just and allow the party to defend the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5(c).) Here, Defendant Sengul contends he has been living in Maui, Hawaii for the past ten years and working at his business Greenleaf Diamonds in Maui at the time the purported service of process was rendered. (Sengul Decl., ¶¶2-3, 7, Exs. 1-2.) Defendant Sengul further contends that the 4220 Mesa Drive, La Canada, Flintridge, CA property where the purported service of process was effectuated is his investment Airbnb property that was being rented out by third-party guests during the time service was rendered. ( Id. at ¶¶4-5, Exs. 3-4.) Moreover, Defendant Sengul asserts he became aware of this pending case in early March of this year, when he received a notice letter from his California bank that a deposition subpoena for his bank records had been issued by Plaintiffs counsel Timothy Krantz. ( Id. at ¶¶6, 13.) Defendant Sengul has provided photographic evidence that he was not physically present in California when the alleged personal service was effectuated. Defendant Sengul has also produced evidence that the property where service was effectuated was occupied by Airbnb guests at the time when service was rendered. Additionally, Defendant Sengul has submitted a proposed Answer with the instant motion. Lastly, Plaintiff has not opposed the present motion as to contest the arguments and evidence raised therein. Therefore, Defendant Sengul presents sufficient grounds for discretionary relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473.5. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, Defendant Andre Sengul dba Greenleaf Diamonds, LLCs Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment is GRANTED. Defendant Sengul is ordered to file his Answer within 20 days of this order.

Case Number: 24NWCV00662 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: C SOCAL LIEN SOLUTIONS LLC v. GOODMAN SANTA FE SPRINGS SPE LLC CASE NO.: 24NWCV00662 HEARING: 07/11/24 #6 Defendant GOODMAN SANTA FE SPRINGS SPE LLCs Demurrer to Plaintiffs Complaint is CONTINUED to Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C . Moving Party to give notice. Defendant GOODMAN SANTA FE SPRINGS SPE LLC generally demurs to each cause of action contained in Plaintiffs Complaint. On June 26, 2024, before Plaintiffs Opposition to this Demurrer was due, Plaintiff filed and served a Notice of Errata intended to augment inadvertent errors in its complaint at Exhibit D. (Ntc. of Errata, 06/26/24.) It appears that this new Exhibit D intends to amend the initial pleading. A party may amend its pleading once without leave of court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. (emphasis added.) (CCP §472.) Although Plaintiff did not file, serve, or move for leave to file an amended pleading, it is well-settled that California recognizes a general rule of&liberal allowance of amendments& ( Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) In the interests of judicial efficiency and in light of the liberal policy concerning amendments, the Court utilizes its discretion to grant Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint incorporating the new exhibit attached as Exhibit D to Plaintiffs Notice of Errata. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file and serve a First Amended Complaint within 5 days from the date of the Courts issuance of this Order. If the FAC is timely filed and served, the subject Demurrer will be taken off-calendar as MOOT on the continued hearing date. If the FAC is not timely filed and served, the Court will issue a ruling on this subject Demurrer, on the merits.

Case Number: 23STCP04480 Hearing Date: July 11, 2024 Dept: 51 Tentative Ruling Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51 HEARING DATE: July 11, 2024 CASE NAME: Ace Funding Source LLC v. Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports, et al. CASE NO .: 23STCP04480 MOTION TO AMEND SISTER STATE JUDGMENT DUE TO CLERICAL ERROR UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 473(d) MOVING PARTY : Plaintiff Ace Funding Source LLC RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of July 8, 2024 REQUESTED RELIEF: 1. An Order amending the sister state judgment entered against Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports; Flyby Auto Transport LLC d/b/a Flyby Auto Transport; Oversight, LLC d/b/a Oversight; Flyby Auto Transport LLC; and Jonathan Azizi. TENTATIVE RULING: 1. Motion to Amend Sister-State Judgment due to Clerical Error is GRANTED. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS: On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff Ace Funding Source LLC (Plaintiff) filed an Application for Entry of Judgment on Sister-State Judgment (Application) against Defendants Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports; Flyby Auto Transport LLC d/b/a Flyby Auto Transport; Overight, LLC d/b/a Oversight; and Jonathan Azizi (Defendants). On December 12, 2023, the Clerk entered judgment. On April 22, 2024, Plaintiff filed notice of motion to amend the Sister-State Judgment. On May 13, 2024, the court continued the hearing on Plaintiffs motion to amend. On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of points and authorities and a declaration in support of its motion to amend the Sister-State Judgment. LEGAL STANDARD: Courts have inherent powers to correct judgments by a nunc pro tunc order where there has been a clerical error by clerk or by the judge himself, or where some provision of, or omission from, order or judgment was due to inadvertence, or mistake of court. ( Lane v. Superior Court of Siskiyou County (1950) 98 Cal App 2d 165, 219; Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).) This includes clerical errors when made by an attorney who drafts the judgment. ( See In re Marriage of Kaufman (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 147, 151.) However, while a trial court may correct clerical errors and misprisions in a judgment, it cannot amend a judgment once entered, if the error to be corrected is a judicial one, for instance if it embodies an intentional action of the court even though legally erroneous. ( Kamper v. Mark Hopkins, Inc. (1947) 78 Cal App 2d 885.) ANALYSIS : Plaintiff contends that Defendants Flyby Auto Transport LLC d/b/a Flyby Auto Transport, Oversight, LLC d/b/a Oversight, and Flyby Auto Transport LLC were not added to the courts docket due to a clerical error. Plaintiff further contends that these Defendants were listed in the Sister-State Judgment packet documents. Plaintiff seeks to have these Defendants added to the docket. Here, the court agrees there is a clerical error. The Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment entered on December 12, 2023 identify all Defendants. However, the courts docket only includes Defendants Azizi Imports Inc. d/b/a Azizi Imports and Jonathan Azizi. While Plaintiff does not seek revision of the documents themselves, Plaintiffs request is still proper because it is clearly a clerical error that the docket does not accurately reflect the entered Judgment. (Code Civ. Proc. § 183(3).) Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to amend. CONCLUSION: For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows: 1. Motion to Amend Sister-State Judgment due to Clerical Error is GRANTED. Moving party is to give notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 11, 2024 __________________________________ Upinder S. Kalra Judge of the Superior Court