Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22PSCV00169, Date: 2022-10-11 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: 22PSCV00169    Hearing Date: October 11, 2022    Dept: O

Plaintiff Ford Motor Credit Company LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED, effective upon Plaintiff’s submission of a revised Judicial Council Form JUD-100 judgment [see below].

Background   

Plaintiff Ford Motor Credit Company LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: On October 20, 2017, Daniel Espinoza (“Defendant”) entered into a written Retail Installment contract with Ed Butts Ford, wherein Defendant purchased a 2016 Ford Edge (“subject vehicle”). Plaintiff is the assignee of Ed Butts Ford. Defendant has defaulted under the terms and conditions of the contract.

On February 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for:

1.                  Breach of Contract

On August 12, 2022, Defendant’s default was entered.

A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service are set for October 11, 2022.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is granted, effective upon Plaintiff’s submission of a  revised Judicial Council Form JUD-100 judgment deleting the check mark next to Paragraph 7 and the language added next to same on the basis that possession of the subject vehicle was not set forth in the prayer of Plaintiff’s complaint.