TENTATIVE 

Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Albert Nazaryan, Nelli Nazaryan, Albert Ohanjanyan, Zhasmen Tovbekhakyan, Samantha Te Le, and Does 1 through 30 arising from a motor vehicle collision which occurred on October 28, 2020 between Plaintiff’s insured, Nelli Nazaryan, and defendant Samantha Lee Te seeking declaratory relief. 

Plaintiff alleges that Albert Nazaryan purchased an automobile insurance policy (No. 6806-502- 75) from Plaintiff covering a 2019 Infiniti Q50. The 2019 Infiniti Q50 was leased in name of Albert Ohanjanyan and Zhasmen Tovbekhakyan. On October 28, 2020, Nelli Nazaryan was rear-ended by Samantha Lee Te. Nelli Nazaryan retained Mgdestyan Law Firm to represent her for claims arising from the October 29, 2020 accident, wherein she reached a settlement agreement with Samantha Lee Te (covered by Mercury Insurance) for the policy limit of $25,000. Thereafter, Mgdestyan Law Firm submitted an Underinsured Motorist Claim to Plaintiff.  

State Farm alleges defendants Albert Nazaryan and Nelli Nazaryan failed to cooperate with the claim investigation in violation of the insurance policy’s “Insured’s Duties”, and that Plaintiff’s investigation revealed inconsistencies surrounding the alleged loss and a significant claims history. Plaintiff further alleges Albert Nazaryan and Nelli Nazaryan concealed and misrepresented material facts of the accident, and that investigation suggests that the accident did not occur as claimed such that it does not constitute “an Accident” under the terms of the policy coverage. 

The complaint prays for declaratory relief. Plaintiff requests judgment against each defendant declaring that no rights, duties or obligations by virtue of the provisions contained in Policy No. 6806-502- 75 with respect to any coverage or benefits arising from the alleged October 28, 2020 motor vehicle accident, including but not limited to claims for Uninsured/Underinsured Motor Vehicle Coverage and Medical Payments Coverage. 

On April 10, 2024, Plaintiff and defendants Albert Nazaryan, Albert Ohanjanyan, and Zhasmen Tovbekhakyan stipulated to vacate the entry of default obtained against them on March 8, 2024 and on March 14, 2024, and that these defendants shall file and serve their Answer to the Complaint by April 15, 2024.  

However, defendants Albert Nazaryan, Albert Ohanjanyan, and Zhasmen Tovbekhakyan failed to file their Answer by April 15, 2024. 

On April 23, 2024, Plaintiff once more obtained entry of default against Albert Nazaryan, Albert Ohanjanyan, and Zhasmen Tovbekhakyan. Additionally, Plaintiff obtained entry of default against Nelli Nazaryan. 

On May 28, 2024, dismissal was entered against Albert Ohanjanyan. 

On July 17, 2024, defendants Albert Nazaryan, Zhasmen Tovbekhakyan, and Nelli Nazaryan filed their Answer on July 17, 2024. Entry of default cuts off a party’s right to appear in the action, including by filing pleadings, until default is set aside. (Devlin v. Kearny Mesa AMC/Jeep/Renault, Inc. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385-86.) “A defendant against whom a default has been entered is out of court and is not entitled to take any further steps in the cause affecting plaintiff's right of action; he cannot thereafter, until such default is set aside in a proper proceeding, file pleadings or move for a new trial or demand notice of subsequent proceedings.” (Brooks v. Nelson (1928) 95 Cal. App. 144, 147–148.)  

Here, the initial stipulation to vacate entry of default pertained to the March 2024 defaults against Albert Nazaryan, Albert Ohanjanyan, and Zhasmen Tovbekhakyan only, not to Nelli Nazaryan. Since then, Plaintiff reobtained default against Albert Nazaryan and Zhasmen Tovbekhakyan, and obtained default against Nelli Nazaryan at the same time. To date, there has neither been a stipulation to set aside the April 23, 2024 defaults nor any filed motion to set aside/vacate the April 23, 2024 entry of defaults. Therefore, the Answer filed on behalf of Albert Nazaryan, Zhasmen Tovbekhakyan, and Nelli Nazaryan is improper; the Court notes that Plaintiff filed a motion to strike the Answer, which is set to be heard on November 14, 2024. 

Dismissal was entered against defendants Albert Ohanjanyan, Samantha Te Le, and Does 1 through 30 in May 2024. Plaintiff seeks default judgment against the remaining defendants to this action: Albert Nazaryan, Nelli Nazaryan, and Zhasmen Tovbekhakyan. 

The request for default judgment on June 25, 2024 is DENIED without prejudice for the following reasons:  

Plaintiff submits its application for default judgment on pleading paper instead of on CIV-100. The use of judicial council form CIV-100 is mandatory. (CRC, Rule 3.1800(a).) Plaintiff is to utilize CIV-100 [Rev. January 1, 2023].  

Plaintiff’s proposed judgment on JUD-100 uses an outdated 2002 form. Plaintiff is requested to use JUD-100 [Rev. January 1, 2024]. 

Lastly, Plaintiff’s employee Trish Kero (“Kero”), employed in the Special Investigative Unit, purports to authenticate exhibits that are referenced and “attached hereto.” No attachments were provided with Kero’s affidavit.