Department 58

Hearing Date: January 27, 2023

Case Name: Allen Esfahani v. Farshad Asgharloo

Case No.: 21STCV32295

Matter: Default Judgment Application

Moving Party: Plaintiff Allen Esfahani

Responding Party: Unopposed

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court continues the matter to a later date to be decided at the hearing for Plaintiff to submit proper declarations and appropriate supporting evidence.

STATEMENT OF CASE

This is a complaint alleging breach of contract, intentional/negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and accounting. Allen Esfahani (Plaintiff) alleges that he and Farshad Asgharloo (Defendant) were partners in a car service business. The Complaint avers that the contract was initially oral. After Defendant returned from abroad, the parties memorialized the agreement in writing. Defendant failed to perform his obligations under the contract and abandoned the business. Plaintiff alleges that he invested $250,000.00 into the partnership and that Defendant also transferred $10,000.00 from the partnership into his personal bank account. A total of $260,000.00 in damages is requested.

Defendant filed an Answer, but this was stricken in August 2022 because he failed to appear at two subsequent hearings.

Default was entered against Defendant, but “DOES 1 to 100” have not been dismissed. Plaintiff now seeks a default judgment against Defendant.

The Court previously continued the matter for additional evidence. Plaintiff now submits a supplemental declaration.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s supplemental declaration indicates that the $260,000.00 allegedly owed is broken up into five transactions:

· $57,000.00 as a promissory note by Defendant to Plaintiff for a personal loan

· $43,000.00 for an invoice that Defendant allegedly requested Plaintiff to pay in relation to the business’ automobile-related expenses

· $36,000.00 for an invoice for the business’ advertising costs

· $10,000.00 that was stolen by Defendant

· $114,000.00 for miscellaneous

The documents are still insufficiently authenticated. For example, Exhibit 1 purports to be a promissory note that is solely executed by the Defendant. However, Plaintiff provides no details as to how he knows that is Defendant’s signature, whether Plaintiff witnessed Defendant signing the document, or other evidence authenticating the one paragraph contract. Moreover, the contract appears to be between Defendant and “Fariba Azar.” It is not clear who this individual is, and the contract is devoid of any terms such as interest rate or payment or any descriptions of consideration.

Similarly, Exhibit 3 does not indicate what the $43,000.00 was for – Plaintiff avers that is for automobile expenses but that is vague. The invoice merely reflects the “Amount Received from Allen Esfahani for United Vip Car Service” but does not describe what services or products were provided. It is also unclear why this amount is the liability of Defendant when only Plaintiff’s name appears on the invoice. The other exhibits suffer from similar defects.

Accordingly, the request for default judgment is denied.