Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 23STCV08198, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

On April 12, 2023, Plaintiff KBS Holdco, LLC dba Regency Outdoor Advertising (“Plaintiff”) filed this operative Complaint against Defendants S3D Partners, LLC; Jayesh Kumar; Vimal Patel; Govind Kumaar; Madhuben Kumar; Ketan Kumar; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive for: (1) Promissory Fraud; (2) Fraud in the Inducement; (3) Intentional Misrepresentation; (4) Negligent Misrepresentation; (5) Fraudulent Concealment; (6) Breach of Written Contract; (7) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (8) Indemnification; and (9) Violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200.

On September 1, 2023, this Court entered default against Defendants S3D Partners, LLC,

On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed this instant Motion to Extend the Time to Seek Default Judgment. No opposition has been filed.

When a defendant has been served and no answer, demurrer, or certain motion has been filed within the time specified in the summons, the clerk shall enter the default of the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585, subd. (b).) The court shall then render judgment in the plaintiff’s favor, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint or statement of damages, as appears by the evidence to be just. (Ibid.)

When a default is entered, the party who requested the entry of default must obtain a default judgment against the defaulting party within 45 days after the default was entered, unless the court has granted an extension of time.”¿(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(h).)

Plaintiff moves for an order to extend the time to seek a default judgment against Defendants S3D Partners, LLC, Madhuben Kumar, and Ketan Kumar (“Defaulting Defendants”) by 90-days. Plaintiff argues that good cause exists to extend the time to obtain a default judgment because it has been unable to serve the remaining three Defendants in this action: Jayesh Kumar, Vimal Patel, and Govind Kumaar. Plaintiff further contends that it intends to complete service of the remaining defendants and to seek entry of default against them all as soon as possible. Moreover, Plaintiff argues it would preserve judicial resources, avoid the need for multiple prove-up proceedings that relate to the same underlying causes of action, and avoid several judgments if the Court were to extend Plaintiff’s time to obtain a default judgment against Defaulting Defendants. Plaintiff also asserts that after the Defaulting Defendants were served, an attorney named Chad Biggins (“Biggins”) represented to Plaintiff via email that he represents or likely represents all Defendants except Vimal Patel. (Steinbach Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. A.)

Plaintiff asserts that Biggins indicated he would accept service for Jayesh Kumar and Govind Kumaar. (Id.) Plaintiff contends Biggins has not filed any responsive pleadings or otherwise made an appearance on behalf of these Defendants. Additionally, Plaintiff contends on September 15, 2023, it emailed Biggins two Notices of Acknowledgement of Receipt for Defendants Jayesh Kumar and Govind Kumaar, requesting he confirm acceptance on those Defendants’ behalf. (Id., ¶ 7, Ex. B.) Plaintiff contends Biggins never responded to this email and no Notices of Acknowledgement of Receipt were ever returned to Plaintiff from Defendants Jayesh Kumar and Govind Kumaar or Biggins. (Id.)

Similarly, Plaintiff asserts it has not been able to serve Defendant Vimal Patel in connection with this case either. Furthermore, Plaintiff contends it does not appear that Patel is represented by counsel in this case. Also, Plaintiff contends that a process server it retained previously attempted to serve Patel but could not locate him. (Steinbach Decl., ¶ 8.) Although Biggins represented that it was his understanding that Patel did not exist, Plaintiff argues in another matter it brought against the same defendants, Patel was represented by an attorney named Brigid Joyce (“Joyce”). (Id., at ¶, Ex. A.) Plaintiff asserts that Joyce has refused to accept service on Patel’s behalf as to the summons and complaint in this case. Likewise, Plaintiff contends it has retained an investigative firm, Lynx Insights, to assist with locating and serving Defendants Jayesh Kumar, Vimal Patel, and Govind Kumaar with the summons and complaint but so far its efforts have not succeeded. (Steinbach Decl., ¶ 9.) Lastly, Plaintiff asserts it intends to apply to the Court for permission to serve the remaining defendants by publication as soon as possible. (Id., at ¶ 10.)

The Court finds that good cause exist for an extension of time for Plaintiff to seek default judgment against all six defendants in this case. Plaintiff has shown that it has not been able to serve the summons and complaint on the remaining three defendants despite diligent efforts to do so. Furthermore, Plaintiff has demonstrated that the preservation of judicial resources and avoidance of default prove-ups will be accomplished by allowing them to pursue service by publication on the remaining defendants, seek entry of default against those defendants if they do not respond, and file one single request for default judgment against all six defendants. The Court therefore sets an OSC re filing of a request for default judgment against defendants for October 18, 2024 at 8:30 a.m.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court