Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 22STCV23637, Date: 2024-06-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV23637 Hearing Date: June 3, 2024 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
EUGENIA MOUISSAT, Plaintiff, v. STRATEGIC LEGACY INVESTMENT GROUP,
INC., et al., Defendants. |
Case No:
22STCV23637 Hearing Date: June 3, 2024 Calendar Number: 2 |
Plaintiff Eugenia Mouissat (“Plaintiff”) seeks default
judgment against Defendants Strategic Legacy Investment Group (“Strategic
Legacy”) and Pedram Abraham Mehrian (collectively, “Defendants”).
Plaintiff requests:
(1) money judgment
against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $343,746.53,
consisting of:
(a) damages in the amount of $314,741.89;
(b) interest in
the amount of $22,801.01, plus $26.69 per day following May 10, 2024 until the
entry of judgment;
(c) costs in the amount of $938.20;
and
(d) attorney’s fees in the amount
of $5,265.43; and
(2) additional money
judgment against Strategic Legacy only, in the amount of $29,644.06, consisting
of:
(a) damages in the amount of $26,990.50;
(b) interest in
the amount of $2,379.86, plus $2.95 in interest per day following May 10, 2024
until the entry of judgment;
(c) attorney’s fees in the amount of
$273.70.
The Court CONTINUES Plaintiff’s request for default
judgment. Plaintiff must correct her request for interest under the First Note,
which is inconsistent with the interest figure of $21,085.74 stated in her
prove-up papers. Plaintiff may resubmit
the papers with a clear and easily-followed interest calculation. The interest calculation, along with a
required small deduction of the requested attorney’s fee request, are the only
problems with the current papers.
This case relates to two promissory notes (the “Promissory
Notes”) under which Strategic Legacy borrowed money from Plaintiff.
The first promissory note (the “First Note”) was executed on
March 12, 2018. Strategic Legacy borrowed $300,000.00 from Plaintiff under the
First Note, payable on March 31, 2019. The First Note contained a written
personal guarantee from Mehrian guaranteeing Strategic Legacy’s repayment of
the loan to Plaintiff. Strategic Legacy made some payments on the First Note,
but eventually ceased repayment. The balance due on the First Note as of May 6,
2022, including contractual late fees and interest, was $314,741.80.
The second promissory note (the “Second Note”) was executed
on August 12, 2020. Plaintiff loaned Strategic Legacy an additional $25,300.00
under the Second Note. The second note required repayment by August 31, 2021.
The Second Note did not contain a personal guaranty by Mehrian. The amount owed
on the Second Note as of May 6, 2022, including contractual late fees and
interest, was $26,990.50.
Plaintiff filed this action on July 20, 2022, raising claims
for (1) common count – money had and received (general assumpsit); (2) action
on promissory note; (3) action on personal guarantee; and (4) action on
promissory note.
Default was entered against Mehrian on December 19, 2022. Default
was entered against Strategic Legacy on March 19, 2024.
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 that are 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.
According
to the proof of service filed on September 6, 2022, Mehrian was served on
August 4, 2022 via substituted service on John Doe, the person in charge of the
office at 221 E 12th Street, 4th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90015.
According
to the proof of service filed on March 19, 2024, Strategic Legacy was served on
August 4, 2022 via substituted service on John Doe, the person in charge of the
office at 221 E 12th Street, 4th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90015.
Michael J. Allison avers that Defendants are not in military
service.
Plaintiff provides a brief summary of the case in her
Default Prove-Up statement, as well as in the declarations of Plaintiff
Mouissat and Michael Allison. Plaintiff adequately pleads her causes of action.
“Code of Civil Procedure section 580 prohibits the entry of
a default judgment in an amount in excess of that demanded in the complaint.” (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011)
201 Cal.App.4th 267, 286.) Moreover, “a statement of damages cannot be relied
upon to establish a plaintiff's monetary damages, except in cases of personal
injury or wrongful death.” (Ibid.) “In all other cases, when recovering
damages in a default judgment, the plaintiff is limited to the damages
specified in the complaint.” (Ibid.) Moreover, a plaintiff must submit 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.)
Plaintiff requests interest on default judgment. The
Complaint requests interest on the unpaid loan amounts. The amount of principle
damages can be made certain because it is derived entirely from the amounts
owed and the amounts repaid by Defendants. Pre-judgment interest is therefore
permissible in this case.
The First Note provides for an interest rate of 3.5 percent
per annum. (Allison Decl. ¶ 5.) The Second Note provides for an interest rate
of 4.26 percent per annum. (Allison Decl. ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff does not entirely separate out interest from
damages. Plaintiff’s complaint and request for default judgment collapse the
interest that had accrued by May 6, 2022 into the base damages for each note.
Plaintiff provides the full ledgers as to each note leading up to May 6, 2022,
indicating Defendants’ payments and the accruals of interest. (Mouissat Decl., Exs.
3-5, 3-6, 3-12.) Thus, the Court does not discern a practical need for
Plaintiff to further separate out her interest requests.
There are some discrepancies between the evidence in
Plaintiff’s prove-up and the interest figures in Plaintiff’s CIV-100 form and
proposed judgment. In her prove-up, Plaintiff requests $21,085.74 in interest
under the First Note and $2,168.84 in interest under the Second Note. (Allison
Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7.) These amounts give a total of $23,465.60 in interest. However,
Plaintiff only requests $23,254.58 in interest in her CIV-100 form.
Additionally, Plaintiff requests pre-judgment interest in the amount of $22,801.01,
and not $21,085.74, under the First Note (forming the joint and several award)
in her proposed judgment. It is not clear where this figure comes from. Further,
as discussed below, Plaintiff’s interest computations in her prove-up for the
First Note yield a different number than the figure she actually requests for
interest on the First Note in her prove-up. The Court requests that Plaintiff
correct her stated interest amounts to be consistent across her papers.
Plaintiff’s damages and interest under the First Note apply
to Defendants jointly and severally.
The balance due on the First Note as of May 6, 2022,
including contractual late fees and interest, was $314,741.80. (Allison Decl. ¶
2.) Plaintiff provides the ledger for this note, indicating payments and
interest accrual leading up to May 6, 2022. (Mouissat Decl., Exs. 3-5, 3-6.)
The First Note provides for an interest rate of 3.5 percent per annum. (Allison
Decl. ¶ 5.)
Plaintiff provides the interest calculations at 3.5 percent
per annum from May 7, 2022 to May 10, 2024, resulting in $21,085.74 in interest.
(Allison Decl. ¶ 5.) (Plaintiff’s table indicates that this is through March
31, 2024, but the number of days listed – 735 –
indicates that it is actually through May 10. The Court notes that 735
days times the daily interest of $28.73 yields $21,116.55. This number is
greater than Plaintiff’s requested interest in the Allison declaration, but
still less than Plaintiff’s requested interest in the CIV-100 and proposed
judgment.)
Plaintiff additionally requests $26.69 in interest per day
following May 10, 2024 until the entry of judgment.
Plaintiff has provided adequate evidence for her damages and
interest for the First Note in the amounts discussed above. However, as
discussed above, Plaintiff requests a different interest amount in her Form
CIV-100 and proposed judgment, which requires clarification.
Plaintiff’s damages and interest under the Second Note apply
to Strategic Legacy only.
The amount owed on the Second Note as of May 6, 2022,
including contractual late fees and interest, was $26,990.50. (Allison Decl. ¶
2.) Plaintiff provides the ledger for this note, indicating payments and
interest accrual leading up to May 6, 2022. (Mouissat Decl., Ex. 3-12.) The
Second Note provides for an interest rate of 4.26 percent per annum. (Allison
Decl. ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff
provides the interest calculations at 4.26 percent per annum from May 7, 2022
to May 10, 2024, resulting in $2,168.84 in interest (Plaintiff’s table
indicates that this is through March 31, 2024, but the number of days listed
indicates that it is actually through May 10). (Allison Decl. ¶ 7.)
Plaintiff additionally requests $2.95 in interest per day
following May 10, 2024 until the entry of judgment.
Plaintiff has provided adequate evidence for her damages and
interest requests for the Second Note.
Plaintiff includes a memorandum of costs in the submitted
Form CIV-100. Michael J. Allison avers that Plaintiff expended $938.20 in
costs.
Both of the Promissory Notes provide for attorney’s fees.
(Mouissat Decl., Exs. 1-3, 1-4, 2-4.)
Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees against Defendants
jointly and severally only pertains to the award on the First Note. Plaintiff
separately requests attorney fees as to the second note against Strategic
Legacy only.
Local Rule 3.214, subd. (a) provides the attorney fee scheme
for contract cases. For cases where the award is over $100,000.00, the attorney
fee is equal to $2,890 plus 1 percent of the excess over $100,000.00. Based on
the amount of $335,827.54 (consisting of damages and interest) owed under the
First Note, Plaintiff is entitled to $5248.27 in attorney’s fees stemming from
the First Note.
Plaintiff requests $5,265.43 in attorney’s fees, which is
greater than this amount. (Allison Decl. ¶¶ 11-13.) The figure Plaintiff
requests appears to be based on an award incorporating the $22,801.01 in
interest on the First Note that Plaintiff requests in her proposed judgment and
CIV-100 form. For the same reasons that that interest figure appears improper,
Plaintiff’s requested attorney’s fees must also be reduced.
Plaintiff
requests additional attorney’s fees, stemming from the Second Note, against
Strategic Legacy only, in the amount of $293.70. Plaintiff calculates these
fees by calculating the attorney’s fees that Strategic Legacy would owe
stemming from the First Note and Second Note together as one judgment, and then
by subtracting the attorney’s fees already calculated above, under the First
Note, in order to obtain the marginal contribution of the Second Note. (Allison
Decl. ¶¶ 14-16.)
The
total award against Strategic Legacy, under both Promissory Notes, is equal to
$365,197.90. This yields a ‘total’ (rounded) attorney fee of $5541.97, and a
marginal attorney fee award (calculated using the unrounded numbers) of
$293.70. Plaintiff’s calculation of attorney’s fees under the Second Note is
not affected by the interest award on the First Note because Plaintiff’s award
is already in the highest attorney fee bracket, and the marginal contribution
of the Second Note is therefore simply equal to 1 percent of its value.
Plaintiff’s attorney fee request under the Second Note is therefore proper.
Plaintiff
has submitted a proposed form of judgment. As discussed above, Plaintiff’s
proposed judgment contains an inconsistent statement of the interest owed under
the First Note. The Court requests that Plaintiff clarify these numbers.
California
Rule of Court 3.1806 states that “unless otherwise ordered” judgment upon a
written obligation to pay money requires a clerk’s note across the face of the
writing that there has been a judgment.
Plaintiff
filed a notice of lodgment on May 22, 2024, lodging copies of the Promissory
Notes. The Court does not discern any practical need for such a clerk’s note on
the original 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.
Plaintiff does not need to submit a statement of damages
because this is not a personal injury or wrongful death case.