Judge Peter A. Hernandez, Case 21PSCV00600 2022-11-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 21PSCV00600, Date: 2022-11-17 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 21PSCV00600 Hearing Date: November 17, 2022 Dept: O

Plaintiff Jose Nuno Lopez dba Consolidated Staffing Solutions, Inc.’s Application for

Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background

On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff Jose Nuno Lopez dba Consolidated Staffing Solutions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendant Richard Uballez CEO dba R&R Logistics & Fulfillment, Inc. (“Defendant”) for Fraud.

On November 18, 2021, Defendant’s default was entered.

An Order to Show Cause Re Default Judgment is set for November 17, 2022.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is denied. “If the complaint does not state a cause of action or the allegations do not support a claim for relief, a default judgment is erroneous and ‘cannot stand.’” (Grappo v. McMills (2017) 11 Cal.App.5^th 996, 1015; see also Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4^th 377, 392 [“[T]he trial court may not enter a default judgment when the complaint’s allegations do not state a cause of action. No judgment can rest on such a complaint, as a defendant in default admits only facts that are well pleaded”] and Falahati v. Kondo (2005) 127 Cal.App.4^th 823, 829 [“It is well established a default judgment cannot properly be based on a complaint which fails to state a cause of action against the party defaulted. . .”].) Plaintiff’s complaint is comprised of a 2-page Judicial Council Form PLD-C-001 and a police report dated January 4, 2021 from the West Covina Police Department (which appears to include a December 21, 2020 letter from Collections Officer Jose Deluna to Defendant and copies of checks). Paragraph 8 of page 2 of Judicial Council Form PLD-C-001 identifies “fraud” as the cause of action; however, there is no attachment, as represented. Plaintiff has not set forth the elements of this cause of action.