PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

MOVING PARTY: Harshil Topiwala 

RESPONDING PARTY: Fereidon “Fred” Khalilian and BlockChain Consulting Group, LLC 

BACKGROUND 

This is an action to recover damages arising from Plaintiff Harshil Topiwala’s investment of $585,500 in Defendant BlockChain Consulting Group, LLC (the “Company”).  The Company is in the business of developing blockchain technology for use in the American Indian casino and gaming industry.   

Defendant Fred Khalilian executed a personal guaranty of Plaintiff’s investment in the Company.  Khalilian guaranteed the repayment of Plaintiff’s capital investment within sixty (60) days of Plaintiff’s demand in the event Plaintiff did not see a return.  Plaintiff did not see a return on his capital investment.  On July 21, 2023, Plaintiff demanded payment on the guaranty.  Defendants refused to pay.  This action ensued.   

On September 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants.  The Complaint alleges five claims for (1) breach of written contract, (2) declaratory relief, (3) intentional misrepresentation, (4) fraudulent inducement, and (5) unjust enrichment.  The Complaint seeks actual damages in excess of $583,000, plus interest and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.    

Plaintiff filed a proof of service showing Khalilian was served personally on October 20, 2023, and BlockChain Consulting Group LLC was served personally on December 26, 2023.  Defendants were obligated to respond within 30 days.  Defendants did not do so.  Plaintiff successfully requested the entry of Defendants’ default, which was entered by the Clerk’s Office on February 26, 2024.  Plaintiff requested a default judgment on March 18, 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 $622,026.98 comprising of (1) actual damages of $583,000 and (2) interest of $38,526.98.  

ANALYSIS 

Code of Civil Procedure section 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 of 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 CCP § 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 complied with the requirements for a default judgment. While Plaintiff seeks interest, he has not provided a declaration calculating the amount of the interest due.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800(a)(3).)  Accordingly, the Court denies the request for default judgment.   

CONCLUSION AND ORDER  

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Harshil Topiwala’s Request for Default Judgment against Defendants Fereidon “Fred” Khalilian and BlockChain Consulting Group, LLC is DENIED.   The Order to Show Cause is continued to July 24, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.