Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 23PSCV00900, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00900    Hearing Date: August 11, 2023    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

This is an ADA case based upon architectural barriers.

On May 17, 2023, default was entered against Defendant Young Ae Lim.

On June 8, 2023, default was entered against Defendant El Monte Valley LLC.

On July 25, 2023, the instant application was filed.[1]

Discussion

The application fails for two reasons.

First, according to Civil Code section 55.3(4), “[a]n attorney shall provide a written advisory with each demand for money or complaint sent to or served by him or her upon a defendant.”

Here, however, there is no filing in the docket that this requirement was met.[2]

Therefore, absent such a showing, the application is denied without prejudice.

Second, Plaintiff seeks default judgment against a corporate entity and an individual defendant based upon Defendant Lim’s ownership of the LLC. (See Complaint p. 2.)

However, it is well-established that absent certain circumstances such as fraud, a LLC, is a “separate legal entity, distinct” from its members and managers. (See Curci Investments, LLC v. Baldwin (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 214, 220.) Therefore, absent the legal authority to hold the individual Defendant liable for the act of the LLC, Plaintiff’s application fails.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing in that the written advisory was not provided to Defendant and Plaintiff improperly seeks default judgment against an individual defendant, the application is denied without prejudice.