SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
NATIONAL FUNDING, INC., a California corporation. Plaintiff, vs. STERILIZE INC., etc., et al. Defendants.
CASE NO.: BC686847
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION
Date: May 1, 2019
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept. 56
Plaintiff’s default judgment application is valid in all respects except Plaintiff has not submitted a brief summary of the case pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800(a)(1). Although Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees is based on a contractual provision, Plaintiff does not cite the specific provision that states the basis for attorneys’ fees as required by Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 3.207. Moreover, Plaintiff’s demand of complaint is $55,464.40 yet Sandra Otero’s (“Otero”) declaration in support of default judgment states that Defendants owe Plaintiff a loan balance of $55,364.00. (Otero Decl. ¶¶ 7-9.) Thus, a $100.00 disparity exists wi
Hearing Date
May 01, 2019
Type
Contract/Warranty Breach - Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
NATIONAL FUNDING, INC., a California corporation. Plaintiff, vs. STERILIZE INC., etc., et al. Defendants.
CASE NO.: BC686847
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
DEFAULT JUDGMENT APPLICATION
Date: May 1, 2019
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept. 56
Plaintiff’s default judgment application is valid in all respects except Plaintiff has not submitted a brief summary of the case pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800(a)(1). Although Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees is based on a contractual provision, Plaintiff does not cite the specific provision that states the basis for attorneys’ fees as required by Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 3.207. Moreover, Plaintiff’s demand of complaint is $55,464.40 yet Sandra Otero’s (“Otero”) declaration in support of default judgment states that Defendants owe Plaintiff a loan balance of $55,364.00. (Otero Decl. ¶¶ 7-9.) Thus, a $100.00 disparity exists wi