Related Content
in San Bernardino County
Case
Discover Bank -v- Price Print
Jun 28, 2024 |
Jessica Morgan |
Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited |
Rule 3.740 Collections $10,000 or Less Limited |
CIVSB2421139
Ruling
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. Castro
Jul 11, 2024 |
23CVG-00362
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., VS. CASTRO
Case Number: 23CVG-00362
Tentative Ruling on Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. moves
for terminating sanctions by striking Defendant Vincent Castro’s answer. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the
amount of $1,572.75 for each motion.
Procedural Defect: As a procedural matter, this motion was served both via mail and email on May 9, 2024, and
set for a hearing date of June 7, 2024. CCP § 1005(b) requires all moving papers be served 16 court days before
the hearing. This notice period is extended by five calendar days if the motion is served by mail. Id. For service
by email, the notice period is extended by two court days. CCP § 1010.6(a)(3). This timeframe is calculated by
counting backwards from the hearing date but excluding the hearing date. CCP § 12c.
Starting with the June 7, 2024, hearing date and counting backwards 16 court days (excluding the Court holiday
of May 27, 2024) then five calendar days for out of state mailing this matter should have been served by mail no
later than, May 4, 2024. For email the last day to serve the motion was April 24, 2024. The motion was served
on May 7, 2024, and was untimely under either calculation. Based on insufficient statutory notice, the motion is
denied.
Merits of Motion: Even if the motion had been timely noticed, terminating sanctions are not warranted.
Terminating sanctions are a “drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.” Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract
Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604. A terminating sanction should not generally be
imposed by the court until less severe sanctions have been attempted and were unsuccessful. Id. No justification
has been provided as to why terminating sanctions are appropriate in this context instead of lesser evidentiary or
issue sanctions. Without additional evidence, terminating sanctions would be premature.
The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect the
denial.
Review Hearing: This matter is also on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. The Court designates this
matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than October 15, 2024. An appearance is
necessary on today’s calendar to discuss available trial dates.
Ruling
Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc., vs. Castro
Jul 10, 2024 |
23CVG-00362
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., VS. CASTRO
Case Number: 23CVG-00362
Tentative Ruling on Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. moves
for terminating sanctions by striking Defendant Vincent Castro’s answer. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the
amount of $1,572.75 for each motion.
Procedural Defect: As a procedural matter, this motion was served both via mail and email on May 9, 2024, and
set for a hearing date of June 7, 2024. CCP § 1005(b) requires all moving papers be served 16 court days before
the hearing. This notice period is extended by five calendar days if the motion is served by mail. Id. For service
by email, the notice period is extended by two court days. CCP § 1010.6(a)(3). This timeframe is calculated by
counting backwards from the hearing date but excluding the hearing date. CCP § 12c.
Starting with the June 7, 2024, hearing date and counting backwards 16 court days (excluding the Court holiday
of May 27, 2024) then five calendar days for out of state mailing this matter should have been served by mail no
later than, May 4, 2024. For email the last day to serve the motion was April 24, 2024. The motion was served
on May 7, 2024, and was untimely under either calculation. Based on insufficient statutory notice, the motion is
denied.
Merits of Motion: Even if the motion had been timely noticed, terminating sanctions are not warranted.
Terminating sanctions are a “drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.” Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract
Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604. A terminating sanction should not generally be
imposed by the court until less severe sanctions have been attempted and were unsuccessful. Id. No justification
has been provided as to why terminating sanctions are appropriate in this context instead of lesser evidentiary or
issue sanctions. Without additional evidence, terminating sanctions would be premature.
The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect the
denial.
Review Hearing: This matter is also on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. The Court designates this
matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than October 15, 2024. An appearance is
necessary on today’s calendar to discuss available trial dates.
Ruling
201700491367CUOR Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission
Jul 09, 2024 |
Jeffrey G. Bennett
|
Motion to Quash Specially Appearing Non-Party Amy Levan's Notice of Motion and Motion to Quash Service of Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Judgment Debtor |
201700491367CUOR
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF VENTURA
Tentative Ruling
201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission
07/09/2024 in Department 21
Motion to Quash Specially Appearing Non-Party Amy Levan's Notice of Motion and
Motion to Quash Service of Motion to Amend Judgment to Add Judgment Debtor
The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please
arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is
called.
The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by
CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make
arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for
approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No
exceptions will be made.
With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to
submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at
805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at:
Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of
sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party
appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not
communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing,
the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative.
Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the
prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a),
(b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with
the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized.
Tentative Ruling
GRANTS nonparty Amy LeVan’s motion to quash Plaintiff Sherwood Valley Homeowners
Association’s service of its motion to amend judgment to add judgment debtors.
Although the law regarding what type of service is required for Plaintiff’s motion to amend the
judgment is not entirely clear (compare Favila v. Pasquarella (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 934, 947,
fn. 10, with Reliant Life Shares, LLC v. Cooper (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 14, 58), the Court
concludes that for the purposes of Plaintiff’s motion to amend the more “suitable process…most
conformable to the spirit of [the Code of Civil Procedure]” (see Code of Civil Procedure §187) is
that Plaintiff be required to serve LeVan with its moving papers in the same manner as required
for service of summons. As a result, the Court finds Plaintiff’s service of its motion to amend
the judgment by mail on LeVan insufficient and quashes such service.
201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission
Based on the above, the Court continues the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to amend the
judgment, presently set for July 11, 2024, to August 15, 2024, to give Plaintiff sufficient time to
effect service of its moving papers on LeVan in the manner required for service of process at
least 16 court days prior to the August 15, 2024 hearing, and to file and serve proof of such
service with the Court.
The motion to amend the judgment is already fully briefed, and no additional briefing is
authorized at this time.
Analysis
The Association’s motion to amend the judgment to add additional judgment debtors is brought
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §187. Section 187 provides that:
“When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred
on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given;
and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically
pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may
be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.”
Because a motion to amend a judgment to add alter egos is not a “proceeding …specifically
pointed out by this Code or the statute,” the Court may employ “any suitable process or mode of
proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.”
Stated differently, the procedural rules governing the Association’s motion to amend the
judgment are not specified by statute, and therefore the Court must determine what procedural
rules are appropriate (“most conformable to the spirit of this Code”) for such a proceeding.
The Court notes that a motion to amend the judgment to add an alter ego as a judgment debtor is
viewed by the courts as an equitable procedure pursuant to which the Court is not adding a new
defendant, but merely inserting the correct name of the real defendant. (See Leek v. Cooper
(2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 399, 419.) However, LeVan persuasively argues that unless and until
the Court adjudicates that LeVan is an alter ego of the judgment debtor, New Mission, LLC
(“New Mission”), LeVan is legally a separate person from New Mission and therefore the Court
needs to acquire jurisdiction over LeVan in an appropriate manner to rule on the merits of the
alter ego allegations.
There is appellate authority standing for the procedure that a motion to amend the judgment
pursuant to §187 must be a noticed motion. (See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Weinberg
(2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1, 9 [Stating that: “Code of Civil Procedure section 187 contemplates a
noticed motion.”].) However, there appears to be a dearth of authority directly addressing the
issue of how a nonparty alleged alter ego should be served with notice of such a motion and the
moving papers.
There is authority suggesting – without explicitly holding –that the Association’s moving papers
in support of the motion should have been personally served on LeVan, because such service is
in the spirit of the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure regarding initiating a lawsuit against
201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission
a party. For example, the 2nd District Court of Appeal stated the following with respect to
service of a motion to amend a judgment on the person allegedly the alter ego of the judgment
debtor:
“As discussed, the Estate personally served the motion to amend on Pasquarella, at the
time no longer a party in the Get Flipped litigation, and not her counsel of record in the
Moofly Productions litigation—a procedure that was entirely proper, although perhaps
not a model of professional courtesy. (Cf. §§ 415.10 [requiring personal service of papers
initiating a lawsuit], 684.020, subd. (a) [requiring postjudgment papers be served on
postjudgment debtor, not debtor's counsel, absent a request on file with the court].)
(Pasquarella was also served as the registered agent for judgment debtor Moofly
Productions.)”
(Favila v. Pasquarella (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 934, 947, fn. 10.)
There is 2nd District Court of Appeal authority suggesting that service of a motion to amend
judgment is affected by the presence or lack thereof of evidence regarding alter ego status.
“As Ms. Cainong necessarily concedes, the service at issue here is not the service of a
summons and complaint, and she offers no authority for her contention that the motion to
amend the judgment was ‘akin’ to service of a summons and complaint. In the absence of
any such authority, we see no reason to treat Cooper's motion to amend the judgment as
subject to different procedural requirements than any other motion. Particularly is this
so given the court's findings in phase one of the trial that the evidence established
Michaels used the three trusts as extensions of himself.” (emphasis added)
(Reliant Life Shares, LLC v. Cooper (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 14, 58 [“Reliant”].)
Here, unlike in Reliant, the Association fails to submit any evidence that this Court made any
findings at or prior to trial that any of the third parties the Association seeks to add to the
judgment “used [New Mission] as extensions of [themselves].”
The very limited case law on the issue does not provide a clear answer as to what kind of service
of the present motion to amend the judgment is required with respect to LeVan. The Court
adopts the more conservative approach approved of in Favila v. Pasquarella, and requires the
Association to serve LeVan personally with the moving papers, as this is more likely to avoid
potential jurisdictional issues with any amended judgment against LeVan. The Court will require
the Association to serve LeVan with its moving papers in the same manner as required for
service of process.
In her Reply Brief, LeVan argues that Court lacks the discretion to continue the hearing because
it does not presently have jurisdiction over the controversy between the parties. The Court
rejects LeVan’s argument because, inter alia, in her May 16, 2024 ex parte application LeVan
previously requested an order continuing the hearing on the Association’s motion to amend the
judgment, which request was granted in part, and therefore she will not be heard to argue that the
Court lacks either the jurisdiction or power to continue the hearing.
201700491367CUOR: Sherwood Valley HOA vs New Mission
The hearing on the Association’s motion to amend the judgment is presently set for July 11,
2024. The Court will continue the hearing on the motion for approximately five weeks to
August 15, 2024, to give the Association sufficient time to effect service of its moving papers on
LeVan in the manner required for service of process at least 16 court days prior to the August 15,
2024 hearing, and to file and serve proof of such service.
The Court does not authorize any additional briefing on the motion for leave to amend, as the
matter has already been fully briefed.
Ruling
TD Bank USA, NA vs Touch, KC
Jul 10, 2024 |
24CV00043
24CV00043 TD Bank USA, NA v. Touch, KC
EVENT: Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Matters Admitted
Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Matters Admitted is GRANTED. The Court will sign the proposed
order.
3-||4. 24CV00299 Armatis, Katrina v. Goldstein, Rachel Lynn
EVENT: (1) Defendant AirBNB Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and For Stay of
Proceedings Pending Disposition of this Motion and Arbitration
(2) Case Management Conference
Defendant Airbnb Inc.’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is
GRANTED. This case is stayed in its entirety pending arbitration. A Case Management
Conference is hereby scheduled for December 11, 2024 at 10:30am.
1
||5. 24CV00970 In re: MacNeil, Kaci
EVENT: Change of Name (minor) (Continued from 5/22/24)
There is no proof of publication on file. Upon the filing of the proof of publication, the Court
will sign the decree provided.
6-||7. 22CV02404 Guinn, Lisa v. Graham Solar Systems, Inc. et al.
EVENT: (1) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (Defendant Nicholas Graham)
(2) Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel (Defendant Graham Solar Systems Inc.)
(Continued from 6/12/24)
Both motions to be relieved as counsel are granted. The court will sign the proposed orders.
The orders will become effective upon the filing of the proof of service indicating Defendants
were served with the order.
2|Page
8-||10. 19CV01226 Randolph, Teresa v. Trustees of the California State University et al.
EVENT: (1) Defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University’s Motion to
Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admissions and for Sanctions;
(2) Defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University’s Motion to Compel
Responses to Requests for Production of Documents and for Sanctions;
(3) Defendant Board of Trustees of the California State University’s Motion to Compel
Responses to Interrogatories and for Sanctions
Continued from 6/26/24
These discovery motions are unopposed.
Defendants’ Motions are granted in their entirety to the extent Plaintiff’s verifications do not
comply with the Code of Civil Procedure as they are not under penalty of perjury. Plaintiff is
ordered to provide further code complaint verifications within 10 days of notice of this order.
As to other issues, the Court rules as follows.
Production of Documents
Request No. 103 – As it appears Plaintiff has failed to follow through with her promise to
produce documents, Plaintiff is ordered to produce responsive documents within 10 days of
notice of this order.
Request No. 105 – The objections are untimely and must be removed. As to the adequacy of
the response, the response seems to indicate Plaintiff cannot comply, but the response
includes the qualifier “nearly all” documents were destroyed. Thus, it is unclear whether
Plaintiff has any responsive documents. Further response is required.
Request No. 107 - The objections are untimely and must be removed. As to the adequacy of
the response, the response seems to indicate Plaintiff cannot comply, but the response
includes the qualifier “nearly all” documents were destroyed. Thus, it is unclear whether
Plaintiff has any responsive documents. Further response is required.
Special Interrogatories, Set Two
Interrogatory No. 26 – Although Plaintiff’s alleged inconsistent statements might potentially be
considered in other contexts, the Court finds the response to this question is sufficient for
purposes of the discovery statutes.
Interrogatory No. 27 – Unlike Interrogatory No. 26, this response is evasive considering it asks
whether Plaintiff attempted to contact Ms McRae. A response of “unknown” to that request is
3|Page
evasive. It is within her personal knowledge, and she either attempted to contact her, or she
didn’t. Further response is required.
Form Interrogatories
Interrogatory No. 217.1 – To the extent Plaintiff seeks to respond by employing CCP section
2030.230 by referring to other documents, the Court finds the subject requests are not the
type of requests necessitating a summary. Even if they were, simply making a general referral
to deposition transcript is not a sufficiently specific response for purposes of section 2030.230.
Special Interrogatories, Set Three
Interrogatory No. 36 - Similar to interrogatory 217.1, general reference to deposition
transcripts and documents produced is simply not specific enough.
Plaintiff is ordered to provide further substantive responses as discussed within 10 days of
notice of this order. Defendant is awarded sanctions in the amount of $ 2,950.00.
Ruling
American Express National Bank vs. Conway, Scott
Jul 15, 2024 |
S-CV-0052368
S-CV-0052368 American Express National Bank vs. Conway, Scott
No appearance required. CMC is continued to 10/07/24 at 2pm in Dept. 6.
Complaint is not at issue - Need responsive pleading, default or dismissal as to
Defendant(s): Conway, Scott
Additionally, no proof of service has been filed as to Defendant(s): Conway, Scott
Ruling
Discover Bank vs William Arteaga
Jul 10, 2024 |
23CV-03426
23CV-03426 Discover Bank v. William Arteaga
Court Trial
Appearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the
court at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MERCED
Ex Parte Matters
Hon. Brian L. McCabe
Courtroom 8
627 W. 21st Street, Merced
Wednesday, July 10, 2024
1:15 p.m.
The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives
notice of intention to appear as follows:
1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear.
2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear.
Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will
result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance
provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court.
IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing
transcript must make their own arrangements.
Case No. Title / Description
There are no Ex Parte Matters Scheduled
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MERCED
Ex Parte Matters
Judge Pro Tem Peter MacLaren
Courtroom 9
627 W. 21st Street, Merced
Wednesday, July 10, 2024
1:15 p.m.
The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives
notice of intention to appear as follows:
1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear.
2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear.
Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will
result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance
provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court.
IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing
transcript must make their own arrangements.
Case No. Title / Description
There are no Ex Parte matters scheduled.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MERCED
Ex Parte Matters
Hon. Jennifer O. Trimble
Courtroom 12
1159 G Street, Los Banos
Wednesday, July 10, 2024
1:15 p.m.
The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives
notice of intention to appear as follows:
1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear.
2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear.
Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will
result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance
provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court.
IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing
transcript must make their own arrangements.
Case No. Title / Description
There are no Ex Parte matters scheduled.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MERCED
Limited Civil Long Cause Court Trials
Judge Pro Tem Peter MacLaren
Courtroom 9
627 W. 21st Street, Merced
Wednesday, July 10, 2024
1:30 p.m.
The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives
notice of intention to appear as follows:
1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear.
2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear.
Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will
result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance
provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court.
IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing
transcript must make their own arrangements.
Case No. Title / Description
There are no cases set for hearing.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MERCED
Mandatory Settlement Conference
Hon. Brian L. McCabe
Courtroom 8
627 W. 21st Street, Merced
Wednesday, July 10, 2024
1:30 p.m.
The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives
notice of intention to appear as follows:
1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear.
2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear.
Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will
result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance
provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court.
IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing
transcript must make their own arrangements.
Case No. Title / Description
Ruling
Capital One, N.A. vs. Sebastian T Evans, III
Jul 10, 2024 |
CU23-05874
CU23-05874
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Page 1 of 2
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted.
Defendant’s answer admits the existence and amount of the indebtedness. (Answer, ¶
10.) Defendant’s inability to pay is not a defense to the indebtedness. A borrower is
legally obligated to repay the debt. (Ab Group v. Wertin (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1022,
1028.) And, a creditor has no duty to exercise reasonable forbearance in enforcing its
legal remedies against a debtor. (Price v. Wells Fargo Bank (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 465,
479.)
Page 2 of 2
Ruling
BANK OF AMERICA N.A. VS SOO S CHO
Jul 10, 2024 |
23STCV25173
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.
Ruling
Citibank, N.A. vs April Gonzalez
Jul 10, 2024 |
23CV-03377
23CV-03377 Citibank, N.A. v. April Gonzalez
Court Trial
Appearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the
court at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance.
Preview
010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY Name State Bar number and address FOR COURT USE ONLY Hunt Henriques Attorneys at Law Michael S Hunt 99804 Janalie Henriques 111589 Anthony DiPiero 268246 E 151 Bernal Road Suite 8 San Jose CA 95119 1306 SUPERIOR CpUR7 pF CA FpRN A CpV y pF R p 800 FiHO 2426 408 362 2299 TELEPHONE NO F vc No S W BERNARDlNO DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR Name P 8111t1ff SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO APR 0 8 019 STREET ADDRESS 247 W2St Thlfd Stf22t MAILING ADDRES CITY AND zIP CODE San Bernardino CA 92415 0210 Q i A BRANCti rvAnnE San Bernardino District Civil Division PAULA ROGER EP J 1 Y CASE NAME PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES LLC v KARYNA AMADOR CASE NUMBER CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation Unlimited OX Limited Counter Joinder Amount Amount JUDGE demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant exceeds 25 000 25 000 or less Cal Rules of Court rule 3 402 DEPT ltems 1 6 below must be com leted see instructions on a e2 1 Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Cal Rules of Court rules 3 400 3 403 0 Auto 22 Breach of contract warranty 06 0 Uninsured Motorist 46 Rule 3 740 collections 09 0 Antitrust Trade regulation 03 Other PI PD VND Personal Other collections 09 0 Construction defect 10 Injury Property Mass tort 40 Damage Wrongful Death Tort 0 Insurance coverage 18 0 Asbestos 04 Other contract 37 0 Securities litigation 28 0 Product liabilit Y 24 Real Property EnvironmentallToxic tort 30 Medical malpractice 45 0 Eminent domain Inverse 0 nsurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provisionally complex case 0 Other PVPD WD 23 condemnation 14 types 41 Wrongful eviction 33 Non PUPD WD Other Tort Enforcement of Judgment ther 0 property 26 real 0 Business torUunfair business practice 07 Enforcement of judgment 20 0 Civil rights 08 Unlawful Detainer Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Defamation 13 0 Commercial 31 0 RICO 27 Fraud 16 0 Residential 32 0 Other complaint not specified above 42 0 Intellectual property 19 0 Drugs 38 Miscellaneous Civil Petition 0 Professional negligence 25 Judicial Review 0 Partnership and corporate governance 21 0 OthF r non PI PDV1 D tort 35 Asset forfeiture 05 Other petition notspecified above 43 Employment Petition re arbitration award 11 0 Wrongful termination 36 Writ of mandate 02 Other employment 15 Other judicial review 39 2 This case is X is not complex under rule 3 400 of the California Rules of Court If the case is complex mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management a 0 Large number of separately represented parties d 0 Large number of witnesses b 0 Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e 0 Coordination and related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time consuming to resolve in other counties states or countries or in a federal court c Substantial amount of documentary evidence f Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision 3 Remedies sought check all that a b injunctive apply monetary nonmonetary declaratory or relief c punitive 4 Number of causes of action specify 1 5 This case is is not a class action suit 6 If there are any known related cases file and serve a notice of related case You may use form CM 015 Date March 26 2019 Anthony DiPiero 268246 TYPE OR PRINT NAME SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY NOTICE Plaintiff must file this cover sheet wifh the first paper filed in the action or proceeding except mall claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code Family Code or Welfare and Institutions Code Cal Rules of Court rule 3 220 Failure to file may result in sanctions File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule If this case is complex under rule 3 400 et seq of the California Rules of Court you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding Unless this is a collections case under rule 3 740 or a complex case this cover sheet shall be used for statistical purposes only Pa e1of2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal Rules ot Court rules 2 30 3220 3 400 3 403 3 740 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Judicial Council of California Cal Standards of Judicial Administration std 3 10 CM 010 Rev July 1 2007 wwwcourtinfo ca gov 1320458 001 CM 010 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET To Plaintiffs Others and Filing First Papers If you are filing a first paper for example a complaint in a civil case you must file complete and along with your first paper the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1 This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet In item 1 you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1 check the more specific one If the case has multiple causes of action check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action To assist you in completing the sheet examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party its counsel or both to sanctions under rules 2 30 ar j 3 220 of the California Rules of Court To Parties in Rule 3 740 Collections Cases A collections case under rule 3 740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than 25 000 exclusive of interest and attorney s fees arising from a transaction in whichproperty services A does include seeking the following or was acquired on credit collections case not an action 1 tort money damages 2 punitive damages 3 of real 4 of personal or 5 recovery property recovery property a prejudgment writ of attachment The identification of a case as a rule 3 740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time for service requirements and case management rules unless a defendant files a responsive A rule 3 740 collections pleading case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3 740 To Parties in Complex Cases In complex cases only parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3 400 of the California Rules of Court this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2 If a plaintiff designates a case as complex the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiff s designation a counter designation that the case is not complex or if the plaintiff has made no designation a designation that the case is complex CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Cal Auto 22 Personal Breach Injury Property of ContracUWarranty 06 Rules of Court Rule 3 400 3 403 Damage Wrongful Death Breach of Rental Lease Antitrust Trade Reguiation 03 Uninsured Motorist 46 if the Contract not unlawful detainer Construction Defect 10 case involves an uninsured or wrongful eviction Claims Involving Mass Tort 40 motorist claim subject to ContracUWarranty Breach Seller Securities Litigation 28 arbitration check this item Plaintiff not fraud or negligence Environmental Toxic Tort 30 instead ofAuto Negligent Breach of ContracU Insurance Coverage Claims Other PUPD WD Personal Injury Warranty arising from provisionallycomplex Property Damage Wrongful Death Other Breach of ContracUWarranty case type listed above 41 Tort Collections e g money owed open Enforcement of Judgment Asbestos 04 book accounts 09 Enforcement of Judgment 20 Asbestos Property Damage Collection Case Seller Plaintiff Abstract of Judgment Out of Asbestos Personal Injury Other Promissory Note Collections County Wrongful Death Case Confession of Judgment non Product Liability not asbestos or Insurance Coverage not provisionally domestic relations toxic nvironmental 24 complex 18 Sister State Judgment Medical Malpractice 45 Auto Subrogation Administrative Agency Award Medical Malpractic Other Coverage notunpaid t es Physicians Surgeons Other Contract 37 Petition Certification of Entry of Other Professional Health Care Contractual Fraud Judgment on Unpaid Tax Malpractice Other Contract Dispute Other Enforcement of Judgment Other PI PD WD 23 Real Case Property Premises Liability e g slip Eminent Domain Inverse Miscellaneous Civil Complaint and fall Condemnation 14 RICO 27 Intentional Bodily Injury PD WD Wrongful Eviction 33 Other Complaint notspecified e g assault vandalism Other Real Property e g quiet title 26 above 42 Intentional Infliction of Writ of Possession of Real Property Declaratory Relief Only Emotional Distress Mortgage Foreclosure Injunctive Relief Only non Negligent Infliction of Quiet Title harassment Emotional Distress Other Real Mechanics Lien Property not eminent Other PI PD WD domain landlord tenant or Other Commercial Complaint Non PI PD WD Other Tort foreclosure Case non tort non complex Business Tort Unfair Business Unlawful Detainer Other Civil Complaint Practice 07 Commercial 31 non tort non complex Civil Rights e g discrimination Residential 32 Miscellaneous Civil Petition false arrest not civil Drugs 38 ifthe case involves illegal Partnership and Corporate harassment 08 drugs Governance 21 check this item otherwise Defamation e g slander libet Commercial report as or Residential Other Petition not specified 13 Judicial Review above 43 Fraud 16 Asset Forfeiture 05 Civil Harassment Intellectual Property 19 Petition Re Arbitration Award 11 Workplace Violence Professional Negligence 25 W rit of Mandate 02 Elder Dependent Adult Legal Malpractice Writ Administrative Mandamus Abuse Other Professional Malpractice Writ Mandamus Limited Court Election Contest on noi medical or legal Case Matter Petition for Name Change Other Non PI PD WD Tort 35 Writ0ther Limited Court Case Petition for Relief from Late Employment Review Claim Wrongful Termination 36 Other Judicial Review 39 Other Civil Petition Other Employment 15 Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal Labor Commissioner Appeals CM 010 Rev July 1 2007J Paye z ot z CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET 1320458 001