Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 22BBCV00500, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22BBCV00500 Hearing Date: April 13, 2023 Dept: P
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
NORTHEAST DISTRICT
I.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF PLEADING
In this action Plaintiff Ariel Gonzalez sues Maria and
Jason Reveles for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion.
Gonzalez alleges three separate agreements with Defendants.
Gonzalez alleges first that Defendants needed “working
capital” to purchase products from a distributor that they had already sold to
a customer. She alleges that Defendants agreed, “for Plaintiff to pay for the
uniforms and in return, the amount loaned for this purchase would be paid back loan
plus 50% of the profit made on this sale would also be paid to Plaintiff.” Exhibits
A-C are alleged to be the payments Gonzalez made in performance of the
agreement. Gonzalez alleges Defendants failed to provide the profit. Complaint,
¶2. Exhibit is a cashier’s check to Williamson Dickie Mfg. Co in the amount of $3,091.37.
Exhibit B is a cashier’s check to Southbay Uniforms in the amount of $771.12. The
amount on Exhibit C, a cashier’s check to Williamson Dickie Mfg. Co., is not
visible but a handwritten notation indicates that check was for $2,840.90. These
checks are dated 4-17-19.
The second alleged agreement consists of what Gonzalez says
were loans to Defendants “to cover the cost for rent and to cover the cost for
merchandise purchase.” Exhibits D-E are alleged to be payments made in
performance of this loan agreement. Complaint, ¶3. Exhibit D is a personal
check to Southbay Uniforms for $5,600; the notation line indicates $3,400 is
for rent. Exhibit E is a personal check to Marumatsu, Inc. for $3,400; the
notation line indicates it is for rent. Exhibits D and E are drawn on an
account in the name of Ariel Gonzalez. Both checks are dated 11-6-19.
Finally, Gonzalez alleges that the parties entered into a
written agreement pursuant to which Plaintiff would provide “working capital
for the amount of $35,000 for Defendants to start the uniform company.” She
alleges that in return, Defendants were to pay 50% of the net profits and to
allow her to review the company statements every three months. Gonzalez alleges
Defendants have not paid her profits or allowed her to examine the books.
Exhibits F-H are offered as evidence of this agreement. Complaint, ¶5. Exhibits
F and G are copies of two different General Partnership Agreements. Both are
for the purpose of operating a business called Southbay Uniforms LLC. The
partners are Elena Reveles, Jason Reveles, and Ariel Gonzalez. The partnership
interests of each varies between the two agreements. In the agreement dated
March 19, 2019, Elena owns half the shares and Jason and Gonzalez each own 25%;
Gonzalez’s investment is listed as $25,000. In the agreement dated October 23,
2019, Ariel owns half and the other two each own 25%; Gonzalez’s interest is
listed as $35,000.
Exhibit H is a personal check from the account of Reza
Properties in the amount of $25,000, to payee Jason Reveles; this check is
dated March 18, 2019. Exhibit I is a cashier’s check to Jason and “Helena”
Reveles for $10,000.
In the first cause of action for breach of contract it is
alleged that on March 19, 2019, Defendants entered into a notarized agreement where,
in exchange for a $25,000 payment, Gonzalez would have a 25% partnership
interest in the uniform company. It is further alleged that in October 2019 the
parties entered into a modified agreement wherein Gonzalez would pay an
additional $10,000 for a total investment of $35,000 for a 50% partnership
interest. Gonzalez alleges that she performed her obligations; and that
Defendants have failed to perform.
In the second cause of action for unjust enrichment
Gonzalez alleges that Defendants accepted payments from her to start a company
and other loan payments and that Defendants did not perform by paying her 50%
of the profits or to repay the loans.
In the third cause of action for conversion Gonzalez
alleges a right to the $16,703.39 paid to Defendants as a loan, as well as the
$35,000 capital investment.
II. PROCEDURAL POSTURE AND REQUEST FOR
JUDGMMENT
On October 28, 2022, defaults were entered against Jason
and Maria Reveles.
Gonzalez submitted a default prove-up packet. At a hearing
on December 22, 2022, the Court explained the reasons why default could not be
entered on the information presented. The matter was set for a default prove-up
on February 6, 2023.
On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel telephoned the
courtroom to say that he had just been released from the hospital and would not
be able to attend the hearing. The prove-up hearing was continued to March 2,
2023, and Plaintiff’s counsel was ordered to submit a declaration regarding his
hospital stay. (This declaration has yet to be filed.)
On February 15, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a
second default packet. This one was rejected by the clerk’s office.
On February 28, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a third
default packet. This evidence is insufficient, and the request for judgment is
denied on the following grounds.
1. Evidence
The “Declaration of Ariel Gonzalez” is offered in support
of default judgment, but this document is signed by Christopher Reyes, not
Gonzalez herself. This document is of no evidentiary value.
Apart from being inadmissible, the declaration suffers from
other problems. It does not explain why checks written to Southbay Uniforms,
Williamson Dickie Mfg. Co., and Marumatsu, Inc. should be considered funds
provided to Defendants. Additional evidence and explanation is needed to
connect the payments to Defendants. Also, Gonzalez fails to explain why the
check from Reza Properties should be considered a check from Gonzalez. Also,
there needs to be further explanation concerning the check to Jason and “Helena,”
and the partnership agreement with someone named “Elena.”
There is also no information regarding Gonzalez’s theory of
the case. There are a number of checks at issue, but the allegations as to
whether these were loans or investments in a business are unclear.
2. Request for Interest, Costs, and Fees
This does not appear to be a case where damages are certain
or capable of being made certain as of a particular date. (See Civil
Code §3287(a).) How much Gonzalez may be
able to recover from Defendants depends upon the strength of the evidence which,
up to this point, is not sufficient. Even assuming Gonzalez is entitled to the
total amount in all the checks attached to the pleading, that amount is
$51,703.39; yet Gonzalez has calculated prejudgment interest by using an
improper amount; and adds fees and costs to that amount.
On the two forms upon which default was entered, Gonzalez
marked box 7.f, stating interest was waived. Gonzalez may not now request a
judgment that contains interest.
The Complaint does not allege grounds for the recovery of
attorney fees; nor does the prayer include a request for attorney fees.
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Gonzalez’s request for entry of
judgment is denied without prejudice.
This matter is set for a default
prove-up hearing on ______________________
at
______________. At that time the Court
will hear live testimony from Gonzalez and determine what default judgment, if
any, is appropriate.
Dated: _______________________________
MARGARET L OLDENDORF
JUDGE
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT