Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case Number: 24STCV12538, Date: 2025-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Date: February 27, 2025

Defendant(s) Against Whom Default Judgment is Sought: Defendants Paseo de Cahuenga, LLC, the Pando Group, and Milton Sznaider, and Miloc, LLC

First, Plaintiffs claim they are owed distribution payments from Defendant Paseo de Cahuenga, LLC (Paseo) in the amount of $60,394.62 for distributions that were reported but not received between 2019 and 2024. Plaintiffs do not provide a clear accounting to support their claim that they entitled to $60,394.62. Plaintiffs only specifically represent that Defendant Paseo reported on Hernandez’s K1 tax form that Defendant Paseo had distributed $16,601 to Plaintiff Hernandez for 2020, but Plaintiff Hernandez only received a $10,000 check in October 2022 as a portion of his 2020 distribution. The difference of $53,793.62 is unaccounted for by the evidence. (Hernandez Decl., ¶¶ 6-10.)

Also, aside from the bare allegation that Defendant Sznaider is the alter ego of Miloc, LLC, there are no basis for liability against Defendant Miloc. (Hernandez Decl., ¶¶ 5, 9.)

Plaintiffs further state that they are entitled to money Plaintiff Hernandz paid in taxes for disbursements that he did not receive. However, Plaintiffs submits no evidence of any amounts paid in taxes. (Hernandez Decl., ¶ 17.)

Plaintiffs also contend that they are owed $20,362.71 from Pennings and Defendant Pando Group (Pando) from Roma Norte’s first event. Specifically, Plaintiffs were harmed in that they paid approximately $40,541.47 for Roma Norte’s first event costs, but Defendant Pando and Pennings only paid Plaintiffs $20,178.76 – purportedly keeping the remaining amount to cover Pennings’ personal expenses. (Hernandez Decl. ¶¶ 13-15.) Only this amount is supported by evidence.

Further, Plaintiffs’ request for prejudgment interest at 10% is improper as this rate is reserved for contract claims under Civil Code section 3289. Plaintiffs have only alleged tort claims.

Further, Plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees in the amount of $2,505.14 does not comply with LASC 3.214 and is excessive because the fee amount is based on the total amount of damages; however, Plaintiffs are not entitled to attorney fees for claims unrelated to Paseo because Plaintiffs rely on a provision of Paseo’s Operating Agreement for their entitlement to attorney fees. Further, attorney fees are not recoverable for claims against Paseo either. Plaintiffs identify an indemnity provision of Paseo’s Amended and Restated Operating Agreement, which imposes an indemnification obligation under certain circumstances and only references the recovery of “reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of removing any liens affecting property of the indemnitee, and/or amounts paid in settlement of any claims sustained by it arising from or relating to the Company.” (Case Summary, 6:4-13.)

Lastly, Paragraph 8 of the proposed judgment seeks relief the Court does not have the authority to grant.