Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 21STCV40805, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV40805    Hearing Date: November 22, 2023    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff 12 Albany, LLC (“Plaintiff”) seeks default judgment against Defendants OG Farms, Inc. (“OG Farmz”); Chong Sang Eric Tak (“Tak”); and the One1 Entertainment, Inc (“One1”) (collectively, “Defendants”).

Plaintiff requests:

(1) money judgment in the amount of $422,965.90, consisting of (A) $340,000 in damages; (B) $82,530.90 in interest; and (C) $435.00 in costs; and

(2) foreclosure of collateral held by Defendants.

Plaintiff’s request for default judgment is GRANTED.

Background

This case arises out of a failure by Defendants to pay a loan based on multiple loan agreements. Plaintiff alleges that it lent a total of $400,000 to Defendants pursuant to a term loan and a revolving note. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made one payment of $60,000 but refused to pay the remaining balance.

On November 5, 2021, Plaintiff filed this action, raising claims for (1) breach of loan security agreement and notes; (2) money had and received; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) breach of security agreement; (5) foreclosure of collateral; (6) claim and delivery; and (7) fraud. Plaintiff named Defendants in the complaint, as well as naming Doe defendants 1 through 30.

On June 5, 2023, the Court entered default against Defendants and struck their answers.

On June 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default judgment against Defendants. The Court continued the matter to allow Plaintiff to cure deficiencies in the default judgment package. On September 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a new request for entry of default judgment against Defendants. On October 25, 2023, the Court once again continued the matter to allow Plaintiff to correct its calculation of attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff filed the most recent request for default judgment on November 7, 2023.

Legal Standard

CCP § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has failed to timely answer after being properly served.  A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Form CIV-100 Request for Court Judgment, and:

(1) Proof of service of the complaint and summons;

(2) A dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought (including Doe defendants) or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment (CRC 3.1800(a)(7);

(3) A declaration of non-military status as to the defendant (typically included in Form CIV-100) (CRC 3.1800(a)(5));

(4) A brief summary of the case (CRC 3.1800(a)(1));

(5) Admissible evidence supporting a prima facie case for the damages or other relief requested (Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361-362);

(6) Interest computations as necessary (CRC 3.1800(a)(3));

(7) A memorandum of costs and disbursements (typically included in Form CIV-100 (CRC 3.1800(a)(4));

(8) A request for attorney’s fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties (CRC 3.1800(a)(9)), accompanied by a declaration stating that the fees were calculated in accordance with the fee schedule as per Local Rule 3.214.  Where a request for attorney fees is based on a contractual provision the specific provision must be cited; (Local Rule 3.207); and

(9) A proposed form of judgment (CRC 3.1800(a)(6));

(10) Where an application for default judgment is based upon a written obligation to pay money, the original written agreement should be submitted for cancellation (CRC 3.1806). A trial court may exercise its discretion to accept a copy where the original document was lost or destroyed by ordering the clerk to cancel the copy instead (Kahn v. Lasorda's Dugout, Inc. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1124);

(11) Where the plaintiff seeks damages for personal injury or wrongful death, they must serve a statement of damages on the defendant in the same manner as a summons (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.11, subd. (c), (d)).

(California Rules of Court rule 3.1800.)

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5(a)(1), items are allowable as costs under Section 1032 if they are “filing, motion, and jury fees.”

A party who defaults only admits facts well pleaded in the complaint or cross-complaint.  (Molen v. Friedman (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153-1154.)  Thus, the complaint must state a claim for the requested relief.

Discussion

Service of the Complaint and Summons

The court record shows thatOne1 was served with the summons and complaint on November 9, 2021 by substituted service. OG Farmz was served on December 20, 2021 by substituted service. Tak was served on December 20, 2021 by substituted service at his home. The documents were thereafter mailed by the process server to Tak’s same address on the same day.

Dismissal of Other Parties

The Doe defendants were dismissed from the action on July 7, 2023, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request.

Non-Military Status

Plaintiffs aver to the non-military status of each of the Defendants in the submitted Form CIV-100.

Summary of the Case

Plaintiff provides a brief summary of the case in its BRIEF STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AFTER DEFAULT. Plaintiff adequately pleads its causes of action in the Complaint.

Evidence of Damages

Sang Hoon Lee avers that the total amount of the loan was $400,000. (Lee Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.) Lee further avers that Defendants made a one-time payment of $60,000 on the loan and ceased all payments after that point. (Lee Decl. ¶ 18.) Lee affirms that Plaintiff is owed $340,000 as a result. (Lee Decl. ¶ 21.)

Lee also affirms that the loan security agreement granted Plaintiff security interests in various assets of Defendants. (Lee Decl. ¶ 15, Exh. C at §§ 4.1, 5.1.) The collateral in question includes all assets of the borrowers, including a list of asset types set forth in Exhibit C to the declaration. (Lee Decl. ¶ 16, Exh. C at EXHIBIT 1.1.)

Interest

The Complaint requests interest on the unpaid loan amount. (Complaint ¶¶ 55, 80, 81, 91, Prayer for Damages ¶¶ 1, 6.) The amount of principal damages is certain because it is laid out in the load agreements; pre-judgment interest is therefore permissible here.

Lee provides the interest computations in his declaration. (Lee Decl. ¶ 21.)

Memorandum of Costs and Disbursements

Plaintiff includes a memorandum of costs in the submitted Form CIV-100, averring that it expended $435.00 in costs.

Attorney’s Fees

            Plaintiff does not request attorney’s fees.

Proposed Form of Judgment

            Plaintiff provides a proposed form of judgment consistent with the above.

Submission of the Written Agreement

            California Rule of Court 3.1806 states that “unless otherwise ordered” judgment upon a written obligation requires a clerk’s note across the face of the writing that there has been a judgment.   Here, plaintiff has not submitted the original documents.  The Court does not discern any practical need for such a clerk’s note on the written obligation in the current case and therefore orders that it need not be included.  If this causes any issues for any party or non-party they are authorized to bring the matter to the Court’s attention. 

Statement of Damages

No statement of damages is required because this is not a personal injury or wrongful death case.