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/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 19CMCV00150    Hearing Date: August 10, 2022    Dept: A

19CMCV00150 Mary Cuevas v. Benji Home Improvements Financial Solutions, et al.

Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.




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.