PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

MOVING PARTY: The Real A Team Corporation 

RESPONDING PARTY: Independence HCM, Inc. and Dov Jacobs 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff The Real A Team Corporation is a medical and administration consulting firm that works with home health companies, hospice groups, assisted living companies, board and care homes and skilled nursing facilities to help them with placement, compliance, billing, and recertification mostly as it relates to Medicare and Medi-Cal issues. (Imhotep Decl. ¶2.)  Defendants Independence HCM, Inc., Dov Jacobs and non-party Legacy Plus Unlimited d/b/a Alta Vista Health Services (“Legacy”) provide in-home care for patients who are given a prescription by their physician for nurse visits, physical therapy, occupational therapy, social worker visits and similar services that are then billed (when coded correctly) to Medicare or other insurance.  (Id. ¶3.)   

From May 2017 through August 2018, Plaintiff entered into four (4) service agreements with Legacy and Defendants.  (Id. ¶4.)  Plaintiff fully performed its obligations under the service agreements, but Legacy and Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff in full for the services rendered.  (Id. ¶5.) 

According to the terms of the agreements, Plaintiff filed a Demand for Arbitration with JAMS against Legacy.  (Id. ¶6.)  Plaintiff later filed an amended Demand for Arbitration adding Defendants Jacobs and Independence.  (Id.)  The matter was submitted to arbitration before Hon. Linda L. Miller, Ret. as arbitrator (“Arbitrator”).  (Id. ¶7.) 

After the arbitration hearing, the Arbitrator issued an award in favor of Plaintiff and against Legacy in the amount of $192,424.21 (“Arbitration Award”).  (Id. ¶9.)  Plaintiff filed a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (“Petition”) in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. 21STCP02134, seeking to confirm the award against Defendants as well as Legacy.  (Chugh Decl. ¶11.)  The Court confirmed the Arbitration Award of $192,424.21 against Legacy.  (Id. ¶12.)   

After obtaining Order confirming the Arbitration Award, Plaintiff became aware that Legacy neither has any business assets nor any bank account.  (Id. ¶13.)  Plaintiff now seeks judgment against Defendants Jacobs and Independence as alter egos of Legacy.   

Plaintiff provides the following facts in support of its alter ego claim:  Defendant Jacobs, as the owner of both Legacy and Independence, caused the entities to be operated as one and disregarded all corporate formalities.  (Imhotep Decl. ¶10.)  Defendants also represented to Plaintiff that Defendants and Legacy are one and the same, and that Defendants would be liable for Legacy’s debts and obligations to Plaintiff.  Employees of Independence frequently performed work for Legacy.  (Id.)  Further, Plaintiff frequently had to communicate and deal with employees of Independence in rendering services to, and collecting payments from, Legacy.  (Id. ¶11.)  Independence also managed the accounts of Legacy and, on numerous occasions, made payments to Plaintiff on behalf of Legacy.  (Id.) 

Additionally, Defendants commingled and transferred funds among the accounts of Defendants and Legacy for no legitimate or documented reasons.  (Id. ¶12.)  In some instances, Defendant Jacobs used funds from the business accounts of Legacy and Independence to pay his personal expenses.  (Id.)  Defendants Jacobs and Independence, acting in concert with Legacy, engaged in fraudulent activities to avoid their contractual and legal obligations.  (Id. ¶13.)  Specifically, they intentionally misrepresented their authority and contractual obligations, leading Plaintiff to believe that they were responsible for the services rendered and would be held liable for them.  (Id.) 

Defendants Jacobs and Independence also actively participated in the negotiations, representations, management and other actions related to the service agreements with Plaintiff, and received benefit from the services rendered by Plaintiff under the service agreements.  (Id. ¶14.)  

On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants.  The Complaint alleges 13 claims for (1) Negligent Misrepresentation, (2) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Unjust Enrichment, (4) Intentional Misrepresentation, (5) Fraudulent Inducement, (6) Violation of California Business & Prof. Code § 17200, (7) False Promise, (8) Civil Conspiracy, (9) Breach of Contract, (10) Common Count: Account Stated, (11) Common Count: Open Book Account, (12) Concealment, and (13) Alter Ego Liability.  The Complaint seeks $456,722.75 in damages, plus interest, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.  

Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing Defendants were personally served with the Complaint on October 3, 2023.  Defendants were obligated to respond.  Defendants did not do so. Plaintiff successfully requested the entry of Defendants’ default, which was entered by the Clerk’s Office on February 14, 2024.  Plaintiff requested a default judgment on May 23, 2024.  Plaintiff served Defendants by mail with both the Request for Entry of Default and Request for Default Judgment.  Defendants have not appeared. 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Default judgment against Defendants for a total of $252,708.67, which is comprised of: (1) $192,424.21, for damages, (2) $57,039.75 for attorneys’ fees, and (2) $3,244.71, for costs.  

ANALYSIS 

Code Civ. Proc. § 585 sets forth the two options for obtaining a default judgment. First, where the plaintiff’s complaint¿seeks compensatory damages only, in a sum certain which is readily ascertainable from the allegations of the complaint or statement of damages, the clerk may enter the default judgment for that amount. However, if the relief requested in the complaint is more complicated, consisting of either nonmonetary relief, or monetary relief in amounts which require either an accounting, additional evidence, or the exercise of judgment to ascertain, the plaintiff must request entry of judgment by the court. In such cases, the plaintiff must affirmatively establish his entitlement to the specific judgment requested.¿ (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 287.)  Section 585 also allows for interest, costs and attorney fees, where otherwise allowed by law. (Code Civ. Proc. § 585(a).) 

Multiple specific documents are required, such as: (1) form CIV 100, (2) a brief summary of the case; (3) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (4) interest computations as necessary; (5) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (6) a proposed form of judgment; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under Code Civ. Proc. § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.  (CRC Rule 3.1800.)  

Here, Plaintiff has not properly substantiated its claim for $57,039.75 in attorneys’ fees.  Plaintiff has not explained the contractual or statutory basis for such fees.  Where a request for attorneys’ fees is based on a contractual provision, the specific provision must be cited.  (Local Rule 3.207.)  Plaintiff’s counsel also did not file a declaration setting forth her hourly rate and the number of hours expended.  Accordingly, the Court cannot properly assess the fee request.       

In addition, Plaintiff has submitted the declaration of its CEO, Michelle Imhotep, but it is not clear from the declaration how Ms. Imhotep has personal knowledge of the facts alleged in her declaration.  For example, she attests that “[i]n some instances, Defendant Jacobs used funds from the business accounts of Legacy and Independence to pay his personal expenses.”  But how would she know this fact, simply by virtue of being the CEO of Plaintiff?  “Where the facts stated do not themselves show it, such a bare statement [that the affiant has personal knowledge] has no redeeming value and should be ignored.”  (Snider v. Snider (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 742, 754.)   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER  

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment.