Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 23STCV00127, Date: 2025-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00127    Hearing Date: March 19, 2025    Dept: 52

Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Default Judgment

Plaintiffs Esparza Estate Properties 51, LLC; Tierra Sagrada Properties 51, LLC; and Robert Esparza request court judgment by default against defendants Strategic Legacy Investment Group, Inc.; Barton Legacy Investors, LLC; Tamarind North Legacy Investors, LLC; La Mirada Legacy Investors, LLC; and Knowlton Legacy Investors, LLC.  Plaintiffs’ application for default judgment has three defects.

1. Improper Defendant

Plaintiffs request court judgment against former defendant Strategic Legacy Investment Group, Inc. (Strategic).  That is improper because (a) plaintiffs never filed proof of service of summons on Strategic, (b) the clerk never entered Strategic’s default, and (c) pursuant to plaintiff’s oral request, the court dismissed Strategic without prejudice on December 4, 2024.  Plaintiffs cannot obtain default judgment against Strategic.

2. Other Defendants Not Dismissed

            Plaintiffs did not request default judgment against all the remaining defendants.  A request for default judgment must include “[a] dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1800(a)(7).)  Plaintiffs did not request default judgment against defendants Pedram Abraham Mehrian or Does 1-20.  Plaintiffs must either request judgment against them, dismiss them, or establish a basis for separate judgments.

3. Proposed Judgment

            Plaintiffs’ proposed judgment includes six separate portions: (1) $601,248.21 in favor of all plaintiffs against Strategic Legacy Investment Group, Inc.  (This portion is invalid for the reasons stated above.) (2) $601,248.21 in favor of Robert Esparza against Tamarind North Legacy Investors, LLC; Knowlton Legacy Investors, LLC; La Mirada Legacy Investors, LLC; and Barton Legacy Investors, LLC.  (3) $209,737.97 in favor of Tierra Sagrada Properties 51, LLC against La Mirada Legacy Investors, LLC.  (4) $102,780 in favor of Esparza Estate Properties 51, LLC against La Mirada Legacy Investors, LLC.  (5) $85,504.46 in favor of Robert Esparza against Tamarind North Legacy Investors, LLC.  (6) $226,010.62 in favor of Robert Esparza against Barton Legacy Investors, LLC.

            Plaintiffs do not adequately explain the reasons for all these portions of the judgment.  Moreover, this judgment would overcompensate plaintiffs.  “Double or duplicative recovery for the same items of damage amounts to overcompensation and is therefore prohibited.”  (Tavaglione v. Billings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1150, 1159.)  The evidence in support of this application shows plaintiffs jointly were damaged a total of $521,252.96, the amount paid to the defendants.  With interest and costs of suit, plaintiffs may jointly recover a total of $601,248.21.  The judgment does not clearly indicate that.  One could interpret it as awarding plaintiffs the sum of all six portions, totaling $1,826,529.37.       

            The court will require plaintiffs to submit a proposed judgment on form JUD-100.  If plaintiffs seek several judgments in separate amounts on behalf of some plaintiffs or as against some defendants, plaintiffs shall submit multiple form JUD-100s. 

Disposition

            Plaintiffs’ request for court judgment by default is denied without prejudice.