Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 19CMCV00150, Date: 2022-08-10 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 19CMCV00150 Hearing Date: August 10, 2022 Dept: A
19CMCV00150
Mary Cuevas v. Benji Home Improvements Financial Solutions, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
The First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”) filed on 2/19/21 alleges that Plaintiff owns real property located at
431 S. Tajauta Avenue in Compton. Plaintiff contracted with Defendants to
perform home improvements on her property. Defendants represented they would
help in obtaining financing. On 3/2/17,
Defendant, GreenPro Direct (“GreenPro”) did not complete the construction
services but charged Plaintiff $92,000 for $5,000 worth of work. The work was
also improperly done. Plaintiff alleges claims for: breach of contract,
negligence, cancellation of instrument, fraud, and recission.
On June 6, 2022, the Hon. Thomas
D. Long, struck the answer of Defendant, GreenPro Direct, erroneously sued as
Referral Design & Construction Center, Inc. (“GreenPro”) since it was a
suspended corporation and “lack[ed] legal capacity to prosecute or defend a
civil action during its suspension." Casiopea Bovet, LLC v. Chiang
(2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 656, 662. On August 5, 2022, Plaintiff dismissed all
defendants except GreenPro and submitted this request for court judgment.
The striking of Defendant’s answer
renders it a nullity, as though it had never been filed. Brown v. Ridgeway
(1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 732-738. Under these circumstances, Plaintiff may proceed
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 585 governing default judgments as
if Defendant had failed to answer. Brown at page 738; Code Civ. Proc., §
586. The court’s June 6, 2022, order reflects that the court entered default on
June 6, 2022. To request a court judgment, Plaintiff must comply with the procedural
requirements for obtaining such a judgment, which requires the use of mandatory
Judicial Council Form (CIV -100) and notice to the defaulting Defendant of
Plaintiff’s intent to seek judgment and the amount sought. Cal Rules of Court,
Rule 3.1800. The court’s file does not reflect that Plaintiff filed a formal
request for court judgment.
Accordingly, the court continues
the hearing on Plaintiff’s Request for Court Judgment to
__________________________ at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff shall file a formal Request
for Court Judgment on the mandatory judicial counsel form no less than 30 days
before the continued hearing date and otherwise comply with Cal Rules of Court,
3.1800.