Judge: Rupert A. Byrdsong, Case: 23STCV05082, Date: 2025-01-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05082    Hearing Date: January 8, 2025    Dept: 28

Tentative Ruling

Judge Rupert A. Byrdsong

Department 28

Hearing Date:                                  January 8, 2025             

Case Name:                                      Acatrinei, et al. v. Siretskiy, et al.

Case No.:                                           23STCV05082

Motion:                                              Default Judgment

Moving Party:                                 Plaintiffs Acatrinei, Boghean, Catana, et al.

Responding Party:                         Unopposed

Notice:                                                OK

Recommended Ruling:               Plaintiffs’ request for entry of default judgment in its favor                                                                         and against Defendants is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On March 7, 2023, Plaintiffs Grigore Acatrinei, Igor Boghean, Eugeniu Catana, Viorel Cecan, Mihail Irodoi, and Grigore Taran (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Mikhail Siretskiy, Marina Siretskiy, Monika Norashkharyan, Siretskiy Real Estate, Inc., Sirestkiy Real Estate LLC, The Siretskiy Organization, LLC, and Does 1 through 50. Plaintiffs alleged the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) fraud/deceit, (5) constructive fraud, (6) theft, (7) conversion, and (8) common count. On April 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, adding Big Block Realty, Inc., Exp Realty of California, Inc., Realty Source, Inc., Ronny Santana, and Wolf Vedat Parlar as defendants.

Plaintiffs allege Viorel Cecan entered into investments, loans, and transactions with Defendants related to various real estate projects. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed to timely pay back Cecan’s loans as they became due. Allegedly, despite Defendants failure to pay back the outstanding balances, Defendants continued to reach out to Cecan for more money related to further investment opportunities. Plaintiffs claim Cecan referred other Plaintiffs to Defendants for these investment opportunities in real property in California. Plaintiffs alleged they invested in Defendants and entered into various loan agreements and transactions with Defendants, but again, Defendants failed to pay back any loans or returns on investments.

On March 21, 2024, and April 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed proof of services for the following Defendants: The Siretskiy Organization, LLC, Siretskiy Real Estate, Inc., Marina Siretskiy, Monika Norashkharyan, Mikahil Siretskiy, Ronny Santana, and Realty Source Inc. On March 28, 2024, the Clerk rejected Plaintiffs’ request for entry of default. On April 26, 2024, based on Plaintiff’s renewed request for entry of default, the Clerk entered default against Marina Siretskiy, Mikhail Siretskiy, Ronny Santana, The Siretskiy Organization, LLC, Siretskiy Real Estate, Inc., and Realty Source, Inc.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) Section 585 permits entry of a judgment after a defendant’s default has been entered.  A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP Section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.  CRC 3.1800.

JC Form CIV-100 must be used to request court judgment.  Item number 2 must be completed.  Item number 8 must be completed if the Defendant is an individual.  Plaintiff must submit a proposed form of judgment. 

Here, Plaintiffs have not submitted a proposed form of judgment, nor have they filed any declarations, exhibits, or admissible evidence in support of their default judgment. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ CIV-100 forms are devoid of any judgment to be entered. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not satisfied the procedural requirements in CRC 3.1800, and the Court cannot enter default judgment.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for entry of default judgment in its favor and against Defendants is DENIED.