Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 24PSCV00020, Date: 2024-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00020    Hearing Date: May 22, 2024    Dept: K

Plaintiff Comerica Bank’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

Background   

Plaintiff Comerica Bank (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On December 20, 2019, Benny’s General Building Inc. (“BGBI”) executed and delivered to Plaintiff a Revolving Installment Note (“Note”) and Commercial Security Agreement (“CSA”) (together, “Loan Documents”) pursuant to which BGBI borrowed and promised to pay to Plaintiff the principal sum of $60,000.00, together with interest, in monthly installments as stated in the Note. The CSA granted Plaintiff a security interest in certain personal property (“Collateral”) described therein. Milagros Maria Serrano Ortiz (“Ortiz”) and Marcoss M. Espinoza (“Espinoza”) executed guaranties. On July 20, 2023, BGBI defaulted under the Loan Documents by failing to make the payment due.

On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against BGBI, Ortiz, Espinoza and Does 1-100 for:

1.                  Breach of Promissory Note

2.                  Foreclosure of Security Agreement and Possession of Collateral

3.                  Breach of Personal Guaranty

4.                  Breach of Personal Guaranty

5.                  Money Lent

6.                  Account Stated

7.                  Unjust Enrichment

On March 11, 2024, BGBI’s default was entered.

A Case Management Conference is set for May 22, 2024.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is denied without prejudice. The following defects are noted:

1.                  Plaintiff has failed to provide the court with a brief summary of the case, as per

California Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(1).

2.                  Plaintiff has failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1800, subdivision (a)(7) (i.e., Plaintiff must include “[a] dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment against specified parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment”). While Plaintiff has dismissed Does 1-100, Plaintiff has not provided the court with a section 579 application. Espinoza filed a general denial on March 6, 2024. Ortiz has been served, but has not filed a responsive pleading or been dismissed or defaulted, to date (i.e., as of March 19, 2024, 11:30 a.m.).

3.                  Plaintiff has not provided the court with any evidence of the Prime interest rate in effect.